This is an archive of past discussions about Origin of the 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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
tired of reading persian/iranian crap in almost every turkish-turkic related article!
This is because you never consider being brainwashed by false ideas of pan-turks. The study of Indo-european people is mostly done by Europeans (For whatever purposes they pursue) but It has one good outcome for us, that is, the study of Iranian peoples and their origins have become most accurate compared to other people living in the middle east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.119.197 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"Language shift" as is the technical term in Socio-Linguistics is not a new or even rare phenomena, it has occured amply throughout history; consider the Arabs as an example, do you people honestly believe Sudanese Arabs and Syrian Arabs are the same people? The world isnt "afraid" of Turkic peoples but we need to establish objective facts, there has been ample evidence provided here for the non-Turkic origin of the Azeris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Pars (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
azeries geneticaly haven't east asian root but it doesn't means that they have aryan genetic root . all of the genetic tests shows that azeries like persians have arabid ( J ) genetic root .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The science of genetics is still developing and nothing is certain about the genes. Without knowledge of history and archeology, genetic researches are nothing. Nobody knows the genes of Oghuz Turks who lived 1000 years ago. So you can't claim that Turks received their genes from Persian people. Instead, Persians might have received their genes from Seljuq Turks, who were numerous in number (if the Turks had been small in number, then they would have been assimilated by Persian people). Even today, 40 million Turks live in Iran, and they are more than Persian people in number. The same way, there are approximately 150 million Oghuz Turks in the world whereas there are just 25-30 million Persian people. The Turkic warriors who invaded Iran, India, Iraq, Armenia, Syria, Greece, Bulgaria, Egypt, Serbia, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Arabian countries for centuries should have lent their genes to all those people. The same way, Persian people of Iran should have received their genes from Turkish fighters who might have raped their maternal ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.112.97 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
!
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Didnt the DNA test put this to rest. Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab did a test that proves the the iranian azeri are similar to all iranians. this topic is done no matter what the turks say!!
yes, yes, yes everone in the region is iranian. doesn't your encyclopedia iranica say so? full of crap. admit it, you can't stand the turks, turkish culture who patronized you sooo long.
Hot damn, you know there must've been been some heated arguments in the other articles when you stumble upon an entire article on this topic. To make an analogy, it would be like buying a comb that says "do not eat". You read that warning and know that something really interesting must've happened that they wrote it. --Bobak23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just asked my coworker, girlfriend and mom and they hadn't... my mom didn't even know that there was a think called Wikipedia and only has a shaky understanding of the "internet" ;-) --Bobak01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
BlueEyedCat 10:29, 14 December 2006; Yep, they also teach us that the great Iran is from China to Europe and all those who speak Farsi or have been a part of Iranian/Persian civilisation (and are proud of being a part of that civilisation) are Persians/Iranians! You have a problem with this? Why? Do you have any idea how many people speak Farsi in the region (including India, Pakistan and even China) today? Kiumars20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not only racist, but stupid. Everyone serious enough knows, that even in Iran, Persians are a minority.
That pages is just a wishful thinking of racist Persians. Persians always were under heavy influence from Turkic tribes many thousands of years, they can't even admit the facts that anything worthwhile in so called "Persian" empire was actually done
by Turkic people. The term "Persia" is quite misleading in that context.Khan2003 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1) No, this is not what they teach in Iran. In fact the origin of turks or kurds is never mentioned to children being taught in Iran. But everybody in iran knows that kurds are Medians not Persian (And nobody has a problem with that). Also, Everybody knows that The Republic of Azerbaijan has been stealing the name of Azerbaijan of Iran for years. That land should be called Aran-Shervan instead. Azeri's are an Iranian people, whereas the Azerbaijanis are caucasian.
2) Persians are a majority in Iran, every available study completely agrees with that.
3) The current government in Iran is cruel. I see no reason to not let the Azeris use their own language but this is no excuse to dismiss a true fact. There are genetic studies showing ties between Azeris and persians in Iran. You would never question that if you knew how accurate genetic studies are. Anyway, you would not talk like this if you knew how alienated you feel when going to a bureau in Iran which everybody speeking Azeri is quickly served and you have to still wait in lines. Azeris are in every way first-class citizens in Iran.
4) Azeris are not persians, they are Azeris because they speak azeri! Classification in Iran is based on language, because there is no visible trait in anybody showing if he is a turk, persian or kurd. They all look alike and are called Iranian.
5)Everything which led to the current state of Iran is a reason of the Turkic Influence you formerly mentioned. Just before the arrival of turks in the 12th century AD, Iranian culture was a thriving one, even after the arab conquest, Iran was still a scientific and cultural power of its time. But it was the arrival of turks which put an end to it. And I mean the real turks which were warlike and moved from central asia. 17:56 13, May, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.119.197 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is a POV about Iranian Theory
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I don't think we can put POV's as an article to wikipedia. Wikipedia is for facts and POVs doesn't belong to here. Therefore I suggest we delete this article--Ogulsev19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. Once they've just started a great campaign in Persian web sites and forums to insert this POV to Wikipedia. This article must be deleted. You can search it in www.bia2.com --BlueEyedCat00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL, can you prove anything in the article as not correct? No you cant, so I suggest you leave it alone. Facts are facts and most of the time facts do not support your pan Turkist view. Oh yea, and just to let you know, Turks did not originate in Turkey, have not been living in the Middle East for 8000 years, and ARE MONGOLOID! Do you look like the real Turks in Chinese Turkestan or the other Central Asian countries? No, infact, you are more Iranian, Anatolia, Armenian, or Greek than Turk! Genetics have proven it.Azerbaijani01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this article should be deleted! why because they distort the facts and citations! look just what they have done in citation 14: they took it from the context and stated as a citation but what that citation is really: "After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran." and they stated that as if this citation is saying that Azerbaijanis in north and south are different. I edited it and i appeal to Wikipedia: this article should be deleted because citations are distorted. that is I found one.Elsanaturk12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Again distortion and distortion. look what they had written "Strabo mentions that the people of Iranian Azarbaijan as Iranians who spoke Persian".(I deleted it) In Strabo's time there were no Iran, no Iranian Azerbaijan and no Persian. there were Persia, Atropatena and old Persian. this obvious mistakes show that this article should be deleted.Elsanaturk12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is definitely POV, shouldn't be there
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The article is trying to make a "conclusion" that Iranian Azeris do not have the same genetic mix whatsoever with Northern Azerbaijanis and that Iranian Azeris have almost nothing to do with being Turks.
I think some of these issues need some serious considering and editing by some independent-mided people. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of promoting Persian/Aryan/Iranian genetic/race idealogy. The references in the article DO NOT point to that conclusion. Of course Azeris are mixed with various peoples and it is for sure that Azeris are mixed with Persians, simply because of mixed marriages and also becasue of the land proximity. What has that got to do with the rest? These are obvious issues. In Switzerland for example ehe German-speakers and the French-speakers are definitely more similar genetically speaking than Swiss Germans and Hamburg Germans. What does that have to do with anything else? No matter what Germans are Germans, and only Germans (ethnic Germans) decide whether they are Germans or not. And Farsi people DO NOT decide what genetic mixes Luri, Kurdi or Azeri people have so that they relate them to themselves.
This is one of the old Persian chauvinistic policies of assimilation started by the Pahlavi regime and pursuied by the Islamists (who shamelessly supported Christian Armenia in the conflict with Shia Muslim Azerbaijan) to make ALL Iranian citizens believe that there is only one PURE and REAL race and that is the Iranian/Aryan race. This especially targeted Iran's 25% or so Azeri population. Iranian authorities have been feeding the Azeri population with propoganda that Azeris should not speak Turkic, and it is some sort of a sin that they Speak Turkic because they have been Turkified "forcefully". AND THEY NEED FORCEFUL PERSIANIFICATION NOW... As stupid as it looks, this has been the policy in Iran for over 80 years.Bm7908:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Can people please stay with the facts, not just state political agenda with no reality. The article had mentioned FACTS that some removed!!!, The study that had ben done by an Iranian Azeri in Iran who had done genetic test that proved that Azeris, not only do not have a Turkic gene but it resembles more to persians. Although thats one study, please use facts not just accusations with no base. I myslef am an "Iranian Azeri" and would like nothing more then to know my heritage however unless you prove facts bud out.
The only proof of the so called discrimination is from a raciest cartoon drawing that was done by...*drum roll* an Azeri. To say it doesnt exsist is untrue at best it rivals the anglo-franco relationship in Canada
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Turks in Turkey are not related to Turks in Central Asia. They belong to Caucasia race. OK.
Iranian people also Caucasia race. OK.
Azeris in Iran are also Iranian, so they also belong to Caucasia race. OK
All of them belong to Caucasia race.
Therefore, how can one claim Turks in Turkey and Azeris in Iran are not related?
A:Persian-Iranian
B:Azeri
C:Turkish
We know C is similar to A.
B and A is also similar.
Therefore, B and C are also similar.Paparokan17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Paparokan 17:35, 5 February 2007; yes it is the state of the arts of science. It is not that primitive as you try to put it, is this the best you can do? The answer is the Genetic Science! Did you know that a genetic test can tell you what your make up is? You may not like it but that is the fact! People in the west are paying to find who their real parents and ancestors were! And many are shocked by the test results! So, brace yourself for a shock! It is a scientifically proven test and is being used in prosecuting people who committed crimes 30-40 years ago! Now all we have to do is to sit and watch lies being unfold! Kiumars21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Caucasian race is no longer used to classify people (Unless you have a 19th century mindset). Today caucasian people are people native to caucasus, like armenians, azerbaijanis and georgians. Hence, the Azeri of Iran are not caucasian, they are all Iranian people, maybe more related to even Pashtuns than the Caucasian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.119.197 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
give up
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Dr Mâziâr Ashrafian Bonab (an Azeri himself) has made a relevant DNA study on the Azeris in both Iran and Azerbaijan. His result proved once again that Azeris were no more different than their fellow Northern Iranian neighbours and their Armenian & Georgian neighbours. No traces of a supposedly “Mongolian” marker was found, which concludes that the Azeris are not related to Turcoman nor Eastern Turks. Azeris are close to Persians and are only speaking an Altaic language.
How could people still continue to ignore scientifically facts and spread separatism or pan-Turkism? It’s ridiculous. Azeris are Azeris. period
"The study found that the Azerbaijanis of Iran do not have a similar FSt and other genetic markers found in Anatolian and European Turks. However, the genetic Fst and other genetic traits like MRca and mtDNA of Iranian Azeris were identical to Persians in Iran"Burgaz
If European and Anatolian Turks are not related to Azeris in Iran, to whom are they related? For sure, European and Anatolian Turks are not Mongoloid, but they have Caucasian features. All Iranians, also Azeris in the group also have Caucasian features. So, all of them are genetically related. What do you mean by Iranian features? I know only 3 human races: Caucasian, Mongoloid, Black. (Last word: I do not believe in races. All human beings are Homo Sapiens, only difference is their languages and culture, nothing more!)Burgaz21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Paparokan 21:23, 23 February 2007; Uh! And where do you put the red-Indians, Australian aborigines, and Chinese and Japanese and Koreans and other races then? They will kill you if you told them they are the same race! It is so convenient to class people in as little as you want when it suits you, right? But I am afraid you are stuck this time! Kiumars21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think languages and culture is more important than race concept. Also, I don't think that scientist is neutral being an Iranian Azeri.Burgaz00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There we some great points, however at the end regardless of culture, your ancestors decide your past. So as much as some would like to claim their special ethnicity in the end a blood sample will decide it, Azersi kruds and other minority have the same roots as other persians and that is a persian identity...you say no?...do a blood test...ppl lie and change blood test do not, the way you speak, what u eat, can change but your heritage will never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but If Azeris were so "turkish" how come they didn't join the Ottoman Empire and remained Iranian? How come Azerbaijan is not in Turkey? How come that the Qâjârs were Azeris but considerd as Iranians? How come my Azeri uncles celebrate Noruz with their heart & soul? How come Googoosh sees herself as an Iranian and not azeri, hu? Well, it is simple: It is called the power of culture. The National identity of Iranians consists of Azeris, Persians and Kurds (majority ethnicities). We’ve lived in Peace and harmony for centuries and were blessed with our GREAT culture. Why do you want to break that and create a possible unwanted civil war? Azeris are not separatists, only a few people like yourself who spend all of their free time to promote this radical and crazy idea on the net are! I'm sorry to break your dream but Iranic culture is somehow stronger and Azeris are a part of it, whether you and your separatist friends like it or not! Be proud of that..Sonabona
sonabona, my objection is to the genetics study that Turkish people in Anatolia and Azeris in Iran are not "genetically" related. I think that Turkish are genetically related to Azeris, Persians, Armenians, Greeks, etc since they are neighbours. "We are more Iranian, Anatolia, Armenian, or Greek than Turk!" Burgaz00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The scientist does not control genetic results...If he could, that would make him God wouldnt it? Also, this study was conducted for a major Western University.Azerbaijani01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well at least he proved to you separatists that your opinions lack some scientific grounds. Pan-Turks and pan-turanism want to create a fictional bond with Easter Turks (Oghuz, Khazaks, Uzbeks etc.). This study proved that Azeris have only a linguistic connection as a common marker. Azeris are a part of the Iranian peoples in Eurasia/Caucasia, just like the Gilaks, Mazenderanis, etc. Azeris are certainly not Persians, but Iranians. period
Expanded Intro
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Because of the very subject being POV, the intro of the page, consistent with academic and Wikipedia standards of neutrality, must be NPOV and reflect the pro and contra positions. Currently, the intro not only completely fails to present any contra position, but is full of POV. Consider the current intro, especially what I have placed in Bold and Italics: "The Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis seeks to prove a link between present-day Azeris and their pre-Turkification Iranian past. This theory is supported by historical accounts, the ancient Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azeri's, archaeological evidence, and DNA testing. It is also favoured by some notable scholars and sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is the only theory with solid evidence supporting it[citation needed]."
The re-worded alternative is IMHO better, as it removes the POV and baseless claims, and balances it out: "The Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis seeks to prove a link between present-day Azerbaijanis and their pre-Turkification Iranian past. The proponents of this theory argue it is supported by historical accounts, by the existence of the ancient Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis, and archaeological evidence. It is also favoured by some notable scholars and sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam[citation needed]. However, this theory is not universally accepted due to the fact that majority of people and states in the region, including Azerbaijanis, before the Iranian incursions in the 7th century B.C. (Encyclopedia Britannica) were of Caucasian and other non-Iranian ethnic stock (reports of Strabo about Caucasian Albania and Iberia, the existence of Urartu and Manna states), the reports on the ancient Azari language are not definitive insofar its usage over the entire Azerbaijani homeland, and cultural and other similarities persist between all people of the region (Azerbaijanis, Persians, Kurds, Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Turks, Arabs, etc.), irrespectible of origin, religion, language and other factors. Moreover, some differences in appearance, dialects, and even DNA make-up are normal for all divided people spanning across large territories, such as is the case with Jews, Arabs, and Armenians of the greater region." This intro is not perfect -- indeed, the whole article is poorly written and needs extensive work -- however, it is better insofar as removing POV and making it more balances, whilst riddig it of unsubstantiated claims about "DNA testing" and "the only (!) theory with solid (!) evidence supporting it" (if it's so solid, then it shouldn't be a theory, but an anxiom). --AdilBaguirov07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Adil, don't you think it would be better if this info was moved down to the "Opposition" section instead? Is there any reason why it has to be in the intro? Khoikhoi00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's only fair and standard to mention both cases in the intro, before the bulk of the article begins and details are laid out. The page is still, by its very nature and definition, going to feature Iranian POV, hence why should it hurt from including a two lines of opposition? After all, the Intro's are essentially a summary of the entire article, and as such, should include the opposing views as well. Also, the intro, and the article itself, should refrain from such claims as "the only theory with solid evidence supporting it" and weird DNA claims (where's that study? and what are the EXACT findings of it?). --AdilBaguirov01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
While the article itself is complete POV and doesn't withstand a serious discussion, I've expanded the intro to make it at least a little bit NPOV. Having only one POV in the intro is not fair or right, both views, pro and con, should be reflected in the intro, and then elaborated in the rest of the text. --adil05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the POV edits by AdilBaguirov. You didnt even discuss such a change and simple edited your POV into the article. You cannot say that this article is POV or incorrect, when every reliable source on the planet agrees with it...Azerbaijani18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
what do you mean didn't discuss it? Of course I did above. you can't author extreme POV and then try to put those who challenge it on defensive -- it's you who has to defend your claims, your theory as you correctly named it. --adil07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your POV has cannot replace what all of these major encyclopaedia's say. Furthermore, nothing was resolved with the discussion. Your are making changes all by yourself.Azerbaijani20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is "POV" in my text, and what would be NPOV in your versions? What specifically are you opposed to? You can't make warrantless claims, this page is POV enough in its name and very existence. No need to make it more POV. I have NPOV'ed the wording, and added few references to balance the intro. --adil20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
user Azerbaijani, do you know who that IP anon, using a proxy server in Amsterdam, is? The one who doesn't discuss changes and only likes to revert? Because it seems like all edits are appropriate and verifiable, hence should not be reverted, but edited and better wording suggested, brought to a consensus. --adil05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess user Azerbaijani did not know the answer to the question... or maybe did. Anyhow, I've returned the more NPOV version of the article that is otherwise a complete POV. --adil07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Adil, I'm once again removing your POV. Do you not see all of the encyclopaedia's listed, which include Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, and World Book Encyclopedia? Your POV and speculation is not appropriate. Furthermore, almost none of what you added was sourced. And no, I dont know who the anon is.Azerbaijani19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
POV and OR
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I reinserted the sourced information you removed, and sourced other statement. Now there should be no problem.Hajji Piruz02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Caucasian origin
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I moved the Caucasian origin information to its own article. I also moved the page to "Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis" as it is more neutral and more sensible, as it isnt really a "theory", its pretty much accepted in the scholarly community. Other than that I made some changes to match the Azerbaijani people article.Hajji Piruz17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You just restored the claim that "The Azeris in Iran and the Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan may not be the same people ethnically, however, only have a linguistic and religious bond", which is not supported by any sources, including those cited as reference. Ethnicity is not defined by genes, but by the language. You cannot say that all French, Italian or Russian people are genetically uniform, they could be of various descent, but what makes them the same people is the language and culture. Same with Azerbaijanis, so the original research that you restored cannot be a part of a wikipedia article. Grandmaster06:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Page move was never disputed!
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Page move was never disputed, as you can see in the above section. I am moving the page back. Also, the information in the opposition section is not talking about the same region or the same people. It is referring to the people above the Aras river who are a people of completely separate origin.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I read a scientific theory that Greeks, Jordanians, Iranians and Turkish people are all relatives, and Turkish people are not so much related to Middle Asian Turkic peoples. (an antropologist makes the theory using GENETICS) Can I create an article for it in Wiki? (If any theory can be converted into a Wiki article...). This theory disapproves the idea that Iranian and Turkish people are not relatives that is heavily supported in this article.Burgaz18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that all of the neighboring human groups have similarities (Indeed the Kurdish (and Azeri) parts of Turkey are directly and strongly relative to Iranian peoples) .I don't think this article's main goal is to show that Iranians and Turkey's people are not relatives, but in contrast, it shows the fact that today's differences in language are not directly against a common origin. Anyway, I would be glad to know more about your article... and thank you for the fact that you care!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann's edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
I changed his edit in this cases: 1-As it has been said in the genetic section,there is doubt about if the Azerbaijanis are ethnically of Oghuz Turks .But there is no doubt about their language to be Oghuz Turkic language,So I changed the lead. 2-No known book or poem of (Nezami) is recognized in Turkish(see the Nezami page),then I delete that part.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe Turkic people is a correct definition. Turkic people is a linguistic group, same as Iranian people, Germanic people, Slavic people, etc. Otherwise your edit is correct. And I would like to thank Dbachmann for undertaking the clean-up work, it is really needed. Grandmaster (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that linguistic classification of Azeri's as Turk is correct. But if we say in the lead that "Azeri's are (ethnically) of oghuz people", that may mislead the reader. Historically, the Azeri's have been in the region for a very long time. Looking them as a relatively newcomer (Oghuz) may cause such conflicts like those that has been encountered with the old ethnic groups of the region like the Armenians and the Kurds.More than legitimacy problem , there is the unclearness in definition of the word "Ethnic" :that is vague! In Azeri that is "Xalq" and in Russian "Етническа група" , but it's unknown if the (western)concept of ethnicity fits the old nations of the old world. Note the difference between "milliyet" and "Xalq"--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition of "Oghuz Turkic" is "speaking an Oghuz Turkic language". There is simply no other meaningful definition. The Azerbaijani ethnic group has its origins in the 13th to 15th century, by a combination of Turkic and Iranian (and Caucasian) elements. It is pointless to speak of an Azeri ethnicity prior to the 12th century or so, and this article focusses on this period, 12th to 15th centuries, i.e. well after the Oghuz Turks had arrived. At first, there was a mixture of various tribes, and by the 16th century, they had amalgamated into the "Azeri". This is what we mean by "ethnogenesis", and by "Origin of the Azerbaijanis". Genetics has very little to do with it, because genetics reflects the history in terms of tens of millennia, not in terms of the last couple of centuries. dab(𒁳)10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so . Azeri and Azerbaijan are at least as old as the Alexander era (3th BC).That's wrong to look at them as only from the 12th to 15th centuries.Azeris are mentioned in many documents of Iran , many centuries before the arrival of the oghuz tribes.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally agree with Dbachmann, since the definition is based on linguistics. "Azerbaijani" refers to people of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Iranian Azeris refers to Azeris living in Iran. That's it. The current context and the title of the article does not refer to "History and Origins of the peoples of Azerbaijan" in a geographical sense. On the other hand, your edit is just reflect a pov and distortion of the cited references, since you added "not" into the sourced sentences. For this reason, i'm infavor of reverting to Dbachmann's version. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition is obscure. If you know anywhere that gives a definition, please show me. As an example, the ethnic group of "Jews" is a well known and accepted concept, but they have no known linguistic relationship with each other(e.g.: Russian Jew). About your opinion of difference between "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani", I can't find any difference. my edition was not a POV! In the first place I myself write that whole section in the previous page, then someone changed my edition , and before my reverting it back to the first edition, the whole page is redirected and I could not change the whole, but the sources clearly shows that the "not" is correct in that place :The first article says in brief that the Azeri of Azerbaijani republic is genetically alike their Armenian neighbors ( Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus )and the second research says the Iranian Azeries are alike their other Iranian neighbors( Is urbanization scrambling the genetic structure of human populations?)(Please read the sources).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
User:E104421 is being dishonest and has double standards. In the articles Hazara people and Iranian peoples, he actually rejects the categorization of the Hazara and Aimaq people people as "Iranian peoples" based on linguistic evidence and instead calls them "Turko-Mongols who speak Persian". In the article Iranian peoples, he actually changed the edits of User:Dbachmann: [1]. See also these edits of E104421, where he removed the words "Persian-speaking" from the article and replaced it with "an ethnic group of Mongolian origin". In here, he suddenly changes his mind and now supports the idea that "Iranian" and "Turkic" are only linguistic classifications. Wikipedia needs standards: if the Azeris and the Turkish people people are categorized as a Turkic peoples (meaning that they are "Turkic" because they speak Turkic languages), then the same standard should be applied to other peoples as well. That means that the leading sentence in Hazara people should say: "The Hazaras are an Iranian people who live in Central Afghanistan". Of course, it is a known fact that Hazaras are predominantly of Mongol origin, as is also a known fact that Azeris and Turks of Turkey are predominantly descendants of the Non-Turkic populations of these regions. But there shouldn't be any double standards only to push some Pan-Turkist POV (as E104421 is doing right now): If Non-Turks speak a Turkic language, then they are Turks. But if Turks speak a Non-Turkic language, they are still Turks. That doesn't work!
Well, that's a good point , but I don't interpret it as that user's "dishonesty". The concept of "ethnicity" is a controversial and vague topic. Indeed in such vague concepts that's the "main stream opinion"," popularly" and "wide spread dominancy" of an idea that dictates the meaning of the concept. My personal understanding about the "Hazara people" is that although they speak an Iranian language, but they can't be included in "Iranic people", but Turkic speaking Azeri's can be counted as of Iranian people: that's because the fact that before the change of their language (from Turko-Mongolian in Hazaras to Persian and from ancient Azeri to Turkic Azeri in Azerbaijanis), their ethno genesis was complete. In many Arabic and Persian texts before arrival of any Turkic language group to the region , there is clear referring to "Azeri's" , "Azerbijee" and similar ethnic names.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That does not work. "Turkic", "Iranic" and "Germanic" are only linguistic designations. The Azeris are a Turkic people. Period! And the Hazaras and Aimaks are an Iranian people. Period. Their more recent origins, their history, genetics, etc should be mentioned in detail in a special section of the article. Just for the information: the "Iranian peoples" are genetically not "Iranian peoples", but descendants of the more ancient, native population of Mesopotamia and the Indus-Valley. They were linguistically "Iranized" in the course of 4000 years of Iranian linguistic domination. Only a very few isolated pockets in the Pamir Mountains still reflect the original Iranian (Indo-European) nomads that conquered the region. See: Iranian_peoples#Indo-European_roots. As a side note: the Azeris and Anatolian Turks were linguistically Turkicized in the last 400 years. The Hazaras, on the other hand, were already Persian-speaking at the time of the Timurids (see the detailed references in the Baburnama). For those who maintain that "Hazaras are Mongols": they should take a look at these pictures: [2][3][4]. That's not my definition of "Mongoloid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.122 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, applying new concept of "ethnicity" is impossible to the ethnic groups of the old world. Almost all of the so-called ethnic groups in the old world are genetically different from that origin that is theoretically considered for them by themselves or historians: that is natural! The transportation and other difficulties in the old world dictated such a reality. But anyway, equalizing "language" with "ethnicity", is misleading: can we consider English language Nigerians as "English"? Or then why if the ethnic group and language group are the same, we encounter such terms as "Francophone" and not "French"? "Anglophone" and not "English"? Although it's interconnected with the "Ethnicity", but "linguistics" is not the basic core of Ethnicity." Ethnicity" can be attributed to both real and hypothetical origin of a group.Considering the records of "Azeri's" before the arrival of the Turkic language groups to the west Asia that is reasonable to count Azeri's as a non-Turkic ethnic group. The new concept of ethnicity (American one) that favors "Race/language" more than "history/culture" is more applicable to the immigrant populations of the western societies than the sedentary and historic groups of the old world.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any other definition of Turkic people other than the people speaking Turkic languages. For example, Britannica gives the following definition of Turkic people:
Turkic peoples - any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. [5]
And then Azerbaijani people:
Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [6]
So Azerbaijanis are Turkic people, because they speak a Turkic language. I have never seen any reliable source claiming that Azerbaijanis are not Turkic people. I don't think this is should be a serious issue, it is a generally accepted definition of Turkic peoples, which applies here. And Nizami wrote in Persian, and first poetry in Azerbaijani language dates to the 13th century. Grandmaster (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Any reliable source like Britannica can be used , but it's better to use precautions not to regenerate the generalization errors of this source. By using the Britannica definition of "Azerbaijani", the Tats of Iran and Azerbaijan republic are not "Azerbaijani"! More than that, the original conflict was about Dbachmann's sentence:"The Azerbaijanis are a Oghuz Turkic people. Their ethno genesis dates to the High Middle Ages, with early literature in the Azerbaijani language dating to the 12th century Nezami." Almost any part of that sentence is directly against the Britannica:britannica article says:
The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia.
Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types[7]
Isn't it clearly against the "The Azerbaijanis are a Oghuz Turkic people" sentence of Dbachmann? and if some of their elements is derived from Caucasia and Media , then how could we introduce them in the lead of article -the most important part- as Oghuz Turkic people? I think we may not use the controversial topics in the lead. There is no doubt that the Turkish Azeri is of Oghuz Turkic languages, and that should be used in the lead, but about the ethnicity lets not get involved to Synthesis original research.Thank you so much.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Alborz here. The article is about origin not language and so I think the statement should start with Britannica: "The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia.."(the rest of Britannica),..due to turkification and Turkificization of the region, the Azeris speak a Turkic languange and hence by the definition of Turkic people (a group that speaks Turkic languages), they are classified as a Turkic people. Although usually I do not favor Britannica over primary sources (some of them in the article).
On Azeri-Turkish literature the oldest example is actually not from Azerbaijan but from Khorasan in late 13th and early 14th century. It is from Shaykh Ezz-al-din Esfariyani (known as Hassan Oglu). I have his two poems actually, and both of them would be classified as classical Azeri-Turkish. Then it is Qazi Burhan al-Din (East Anatolia) and Nasimi (from modern Iraq) (14th century). Correct me if I am wrong, but the first person from actual Azerbaijan to have composed in Turkish is Shah Qasim Anvar of Tabriz in the late 14th century, but he spent a lot of time in Khorasan and Timurid court. The bulk of his work (99%) is in Persian. But then he has I believe 12 Ghazals in Turkish (probably Azeri-Turkish type) and two in Gilaki. He also has some Gilaki poems which is much rarer (Virtually no one speaking Azeri knows this language where-as Turkish and Persian were more common), and this make me believe his Turkish is actually the same Azeri-Turkish used by Hassan Oglu from Khorasan and Shah Qasim Anvar composed it in Khorasan. Thus probably the beginning of Azeri-turkish literature in Azerbaijan goes probably back to the Qara Qoyunlu and I think 13th century date applies to the Khorasani Hassan Oglu. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
ethnocentric content
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The content of this article is ethnocentric. The history of Azerbaijan both north Azerbaijan ( republic of Azerbaijan) and South Azerbaijan ( now located in iran) separated merely 2 centuries ago! Before this the region was united! How can one imagine such an abrupt genetic change for a small region to have had survived for more than a thousand years in a politically united region!?
Reading this article really change my idea about writings on Wikipedia pages. Before this I thought of them as facts, due to nature of science having some things in argument pages. But things written on this page and the repentance of fascistic pan iranic content in Wikipedia pages really makes it unreliable and ethnocentric.
I think Wikipedia has got to do something really severe on issues of these types! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.azeri (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
About the suggestion of merge with Origin of the Turkic peoples , I think the term Turk is very broad-spectrum and merging articles about the genetics of so many Turkic language peoples is over-simplifying . Is there any article in Wikipedia about the origin of Anglophone peoples ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Azeri genetic result
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
E1b1b1* (meditid race)=7
J (arabid race) = 36
I (europid) = 3
R1(eurasid) = 30
LT (sindid) = 3
G (Caucasid ) = 7
K (asianid) = 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.176.2 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Recent Genetics Reserach state Azeri Turks and Anatolian Turks are more geneticaly alike
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Calm down Alborz its not mean to cause any offense to anyone its just to lighten up the mood in a disucssion where people are out to get each other. But on a serious note, as I don't realy know what these papers indicate, but I think it means Anatolian Turks and Azeris are alike so I suggest you look at this study and if its up to standard it should be added. http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244.fullTugrulirmak (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well , although that is a rather old research but that is a very good one and I think it can be considered as an standard study . I think the genetic terms in the study is some how unfamiliar to you , and as a medical doctor I can explain some of them if you want ; but for making a long story short , I think the images of that research are more interesting for you , I mean this graph : [8] in this image you can compare the color components between Greek , Turkish and Iranian population. The only difference between Iranian and Turkey population is in tiny M17 linage (light blue in graph)[Russian marker]. Because of Iranic groups in Turkey (Kurds , Zaza and Azeris) that is not surprising , then compare it with central Asia (Uzbeks , Kazak and etc ) and note that the composition is how much different.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people like iranian people are arabid genes ( 35%-39% J )"
I cannot check most of the references for this but this is misleading, only the J1 haplogroup is a semitic marker not J2 which actually peaks at the Caucasus and is found only in certain Arab populations hardly "Arabid genes". I doubt the J haplogroup in these references was J1 but this needs to be clarified. Ive never heard "Arabid" moreover J1 is not an Arab marker but a general semitic marker, Im deleting this until we can clarify the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Pars (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Change one :"It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people like iranian people are genes that arisen roughly 30,000 years ago in Southwest Asia (Arabia Felix) ( 35%-39% J )"
User Arslanteginghazi , you referenced to the article Iran: Tricontinental Nexus for Y-Chromosome Driven Migration , can you please tell which sentence in the article is in connection to that conclusion ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In northern Iran, group J represents the most frequent haplogroup (33.33%) followed by groups R (27.27%), G (15.15%), Q (9.09%) nd N (6.06%). Similarly, in southern Iran group J exhibits the highest frequency (35.04%) and is trailed by groups R (25.64%), G 12.82%), E (6.84%), L (5.98%) and K (3.42%). Figure 2 displays the major haplogroup distributions for the 27 populations listed n table 1 , while the geographic distribution of informative clades E, J and R and their derivatives in Iran and nine reference opulations typed at a similar resolution are illustrated in i gure 3 .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Conclusion making out of a source is prohibited in Wikipedia . I mean if you use the PDF search you can simply find out in the whole article there is no word such as "Aryan genes" . Your conclusion (POV) out of the article is not correct because according to Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve theories , all of the present humans migrated out of Africa , but does not means if the present Arabian Peninsula is Arabian language , 30000 years ago it was the same ! I mean your interpretation of the text as Aryan genes , Arabid genes and etc , are not in the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note that you can not reference a sentence to a map . Your interpretation is wrong because there is no known so called Aryan gene . No researcher believes if a population have more J linage , that population is so called Arabic origin and like so . The conclusion section of the article is itself clear and it does not needs a second re-writing. Why do you attribute your conclusion (=original research) to that article ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
i have not gived refs for aryan genes you can delete texts about aryan genes and i don't write any thing about arabid genes and arabic people i just write "It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people like iranian people are genes that arisen roughly 30,000 years ago in Southwest Asia (Arabia Felix) ( 35%-39% J )" and the text is mentioned too , read carefully .asian genes = Q + N + O + ... . aryan gene = r1b and euroasian gene = r1a --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As an example if you use the PDF search box , there is NO words like Arabia Felix , aryan gene and 30,000 years ago in whole article !! From where did it come from ??! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted that part you can open your eyes and watch better . what is the meaning of wrong ref ? the ref that you are not agree with it ???????--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You are adding the sentence that is not in the article "Iran: Tricontinental Nexus for Y-Chromosome Driven Migration" . In that article there is no words such as "Aryan" at all . Please give the page of that article which you are referencing . Your understanding of the page 137 paragraph has been that Q and N are Asian genes ; but that is not written in the article ! The whole article does not have the words Aryan genes and asian genes . How can you use the article when it does not have single words about it ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
it's third time i am saying : you can delete texts without refs if you are so interested you can delete the text about aryan genes and also you can see new refs .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
are you joking ? you have deleted refrenced texts not texts about aryan genes that have not any ref. I'm agreed deleting texts about aryan genes not all of the full refed texts .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
please add your texts and refs don't delete my full refed texts .
and you have refed this page : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
there is written : Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So what ? R is a big group that is subdivided into R1 and R2 . In the text of Iran: Tricontinental Nexus for Y-Chromosome Driven Migration , it is only talking about R , without specification of sub groups , as about the J , that has no subgroups . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Pushing the (undo) will get back all the text . Anyway , I edited the text and now I think it is more better . The second part will be about the second paragraph about Islamic historians .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Among all the references cited for the sentence "According to the muslim historians since turkic emigration , turkic people were majority in azerbaijan" , Only one reference is citing a page and not a whole book and that is : tarikhe Ibn Athīr ( vol II ) p 511. I can scan this page of that book and post it in my talk page or here to show that sentence is not in the book .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
at first i'm sorry for my weak english . from which version ? the version of britain or ankara or maybe beyrut(بیروت) ? can you say this first .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is the page of the book Tarikhe Ibn Athir , Volume 2 , page 511 : Tarikhe Ibn Athir , Volume 2 , page 511 , there is nothing about turkic people were majority in azerbaijan !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
For change [10] , the text is not deleted . You concluded out of the text that the article"s conclusion is "It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people like iranian people is Haplogroup J" , but it is not in the text . Major genetic factor is different with Greatest in number . As an example , 30 in (30+29+29+12) is the greatest number , but not the major determining number. You may not add your understanding to the text , as the statement of the reference !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
are you sure ? ok at that time we can delete all the article because 75% is self-understandings and 50% have ref that has died links or there is not sth like that really . and the text you write upper is your understanding too isn't it ? . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure !(please read Wikipedia:No original research).Every sentence that is a Point of View ( POV ) , and is not in the text of the reference can be deleted . But please do it one by one , because every one action do need a plenty of discussion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
what are you doing ? you have refed this page "http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html" and we are talking about the root of R haplogroup not sub group of R1 !!!!!!! Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2.--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not revert the whole changes if you have problem with a small section . You are reverting the whole changes with out discussion . That is edit war and is prohibited in Wikipedia . We are not discussing about the origin of R haplogroup here in this page , but we are including the thing written in the source . The source does not says anything about the subgroups of R , and because for the Haplogroup J we included a brief explanation about the origin of Haplogroup J , I did the same about the Haplogroup R . Anyway , if you disagree about the sentence about the Haplogroup R , why do you revert all my changes ? editing consumes a plenty of my time ... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The persians have an idiom : "دست پیش را می گیرد که پس نیفتد" . you are doing same . I must say you if you disagree about the sentence about the Haplogroup R , why do you revert all my changes ? and also the text upper than your last added text in talk page is named discussion . watch the source http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html : you must read second line after the Haplogroup's tree .--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
1-Your writing :".It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people like iranian people is Haplogroup J",
My (reverted )text :"Highest percentage among various genetic markers of Azerbaijani people like Iranians is Haplogroup J( 35%-39% J )"
Previous Discussion about the change [12] . azerbaijani is wrong , Azerbajan ( with upper case A ) is right . iran is wrong Iran with upper case I is right . Wikilink to Haplogroup J must not be deleted . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Other users must know that I have edited step by step and if another one wants to do a chenge must change one by one . don't undo all of them and first the problem must be solved in talk page . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Changing Iranian Azerbaijan to northwestern extent of Iran is wrong , because it is not equivalent to that region .Vague terms should not be used . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Again if you use the search engine you will find out that the source tend to be this article :[17] . But I also think that magazine may not be reliable and I agree to delete it from the text .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
about Mannai kingdom and the ref : in the ref there is mentioned that : Mannai, also spelled Manna, or Mana, ancient country in northwestern Iran, south of Lake Urmia. south of the lake urmiya is the ending parts of azerbaijan and the text is not in the ref it means that this is a POV . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
this link : "http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46833/Azerbaijani" lines : 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 @ the line 6 the text starts from word six . there is written : "This population was Persianized during the period of the Sāsānian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century ce). Turkicization of the population can be dated from the region’s conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century and the continued influx of Turkic populations in subsequent centuries, including those groups that migrated during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century. (The greater portion of the tribes that formed the Mongol forces or were stimulated by the Mongol conquest to migrate were Turkic.) Parts of the region later passed variously under the Kara Koyunlu and the Ak Koyunlu, rival Turkic tribal confederations, and, at the beginning of the 16th century, the turcophone Ṣafavid dynasty." --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution result
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The discourse and the hypothesis in the article is simply as below:
In the lands where Azeris live today, then, Iranians (Persians) were living happily. Then cruel "nomadic" Turks "invaded" this peaceful land. Then, those Turks, "Turkified" "local" Iranians (Persians). But wait! Even though local Iranians (Persians) "adopted" the Turkish language, Turks "only slightly influenced the local culture" (Iranian/Persian culture)!
Turks, as "external object", passes through Iran and "unfortunately" some of Iranians/Persians adopt Turkish as mother language!
A change in language without cultural influence!
Bear in mind that, "the people" in this story is "locals". The Iranians/Persians. Turks are an object passing through!
It's not even two people are merging. It's one people -Iranians/Persian- and a gone-with-the-wind-like object. Turks are not humans!
And where does all of these eccentric ideas come from? Let's see:
Encyclopædia Iranica, a through and through persianist text which dares to erase any Turkish history wherever finds a Turkish entity.
Vladimir Minorsky, a Soviet orientalist. Together with his other Soviet colleagues tried to erase the history of Turks as an anti-Turkist imperialist agent.
Xavier de Planhol, a contributor to Encyclopædia Iranica.
Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, an academic member of the Iranian Archaeological Research Centre at the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran. Researching origin of Aryans.
Other Arab, western, and Persian authors.
Turkish authors? NO! Even single one of them? NO!
Persians, Arabs, Orientalist Westerners... No Turks. For a people who define themselves as "Turks" and are participating in the Turkic Council, there is no argument from any Turkish author. Because Turks don't have a say on their origins. Persians, Arabs, and Westerners do.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Origin of the Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
In this page nothing about Khazars mentioned. They ruled most of Caucasus and Azerbaijan until they lost some of these territories to Islamic conquerors. In التيجان في ملوك حمير "Kitāb al-Tījān fī mulūk Ḥimyar" there is a mentioning about Azerbaijan being the land of Turks. Other sources already exists in another topic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Khazar_wars
I hope someone has the time to add this by reliable sources to the article. AA73 (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This is about the origin of the Azerbaijanis, not the history of Azerbaijan. I think your comment would be more suited for the talk page in Azerbaijan. Regardless, the Khazars only ruled present-day Azerbaijan for a few years, as mentioned in the article you linked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly not for a few years. It is approximately a hundred year war over the land and it had its roots before Islamic period. They even attacked Mosul in present-day Iraq. History shows us what is the origin of people and it is the strongest mean to do so. AA73 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article before commenting on this, seconds after I posted it and this not the only article and source about this matter. I just suggested the idea by giving a brief article about this subject. AA73 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why does the article open with "The Azerbaijani people are of Turkic ethnic origins" when all of the sources cited mention that most of their ethnic heritage is from Caucasian and Iranian peoples (Medes, Georgians, Albanians, etc.)? There is a clear ongoing bias in all pages related to Azerbaijan, and unfortunately the editors creating this bias are not even Azeris. --Arad (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/25859577_2c23eeae5b.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/Deh%2520Hazara%2520Dad%2520and%2520Kid.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244/F1.large.jpg){kind=link}