Talk:Azerbaijani language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

To Mani about the distribution.

You added: :In the 2002 Socio-economic Survey of Iranian Households, 23.3 percent of Iranians designated their mother tongue as Azerbaijani Turkish."

I have read the article and also saw the source it mentioned. The author has misquoted the source or has not understood it very well. the 23,3% seems a reasonable and reliable percentage, but the author 'Tiaux'did a wrong thing. The statistical study was just a sample and it did not claim to be reprsentative of the Iranian population. It appeared however that out of the sample 23.3 % claimed Turkic (no mention of Azerbaijani Turkic or Qashqai etc...) be their native tongue. The percentage of other languages is not as good as this one. For example in the sample the Gilakis, and Mzandaranis are underrepresented, while Lors and Arabs are overrepresented. As I said while the percentage seems to be Ok, one is giving too much credit to an author who did his job bad.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On what piece of reliable, published information does Babakexorramdin rely for the statement that "the Gilakis, and Mzandaranis are underrepresented, while Lors and Arabs are overrepresented."? --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if people are just joking but its apparent to me that Azeri nationalism is breaking through all norms and bounds by setting claims on everything before their nation formed in 1918. Im a survivor of the Armenian Genocide and my parents and great grandparents taught me to speak Turkish because that was the actual lingua franca not Azeri!! all you hvae to do is do a google search for simple proof http://books.google.com/books?q=lingua+franca+ottoman+empire

be more vigilant I ask to all the editors of Wikipedia so this sort of bull isn't thrown around to confuse less informed readers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.100 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholars do not seem to agree with you:

"The founder of Iranian Turcology, Karl Foy (1903-1904), was the first to investigate Iranian Azerbaiijanian more scientifically. <...> Foy also made some smaller investigations of the dialect of Urmia. Furthermore, he realised that the language spoken in Erzurum in eastern Anatolia was not Turkish, but Azerbaijanian."

Lars Johanson, Éva Csató, Eva Agnes Csato. The Turkic Languages. Taylor & Francis, 1998. ISBN 0415082005; p. 273-274. Parishan (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian

Hi all, there's been a request from Tabib to move this from Azerbaijani language to Azerbaijanian language (an action which requires help from an admin, since the redirect at the latter has an edit history). However, after doing a quick Google check, the former seems the more common form of the adjectival form (at least, I assume "Azerbaijani" is an adjectival form - I often see if used that way, although perhaps it's improper); for pages in English, I get:

• "Azerbaijani" - 264,000
• "Azerbaijanian" - 13,000

So, given that the Wikipedia naming policy for language pages seems to be to use the name of the language (which seems to be "Azerbaijani" in this case), or the normal adjectival form (where one exists), I would assume this should stay at Azerbaijani language. If there is consensus here to move it, just list the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and it will be taken care of. Noel (talk) 15:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani" can describe other things, or be used as a noun. Here's a comparison of search results for the exact phrase, in English-language pages only. I'm searching from Canada; Google can give different results in different countries.

• "Azeri language", 6,230
• "Azerbaijani language", 4,290 results
• "Azerbaijanian language", 3,380
• "language of Azerbaijan", 911
• "Azerbaijan language", 712

I'm not a big fan of using Google results in isolation; there may be other factors that sway these search results counts. Does anyone know what the popular and academic literature uses? —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 16:58 Z

Not scientific, but I know no one who would say "Azerbaijanian". Maybe though, this reflects more on me than one the language... Refdoc 23:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally say that Azerbaijanian is the correct term... My good friend Richard will agree with that. ;) Mattrius (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New template

I hope Azerbaijanis can put the new template to good use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkoman

Are there any sound reasons to say that Azerbaijani is an official language in iraq? I think no. It is disputed in itself whether or not the Iraqi Turkman language is Azeri, and above that, the Iraqi constitution does not call it Azeri but Turkmani.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Iraqi constitution references the Turkmen language because "Turkmen" is their common ethnonym, but that has no bearing on the fact that their language is a dialect of Azerbaijani. Do you have any proof that "It is disputed .. whether or not the Iraqi Turkman language is Azeri"? Izzedine (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP with Iranian POV

Azeri is a common alternate name for Azerbaijani and it is not an Iranian language. Do not keep adding that stuff about it being Iranian. --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not even wrong. For those who may think what you wrote makes sense, here is what should be read first: Azari is indeed Iranian. Encyclopaedias do not use "street names" as title of articles (thats why this article is not a redirect of Azari language). Having said this, the IP is adding things about Azari language which may or may not belong to this article. But I think a note on existence of the article Azari language and some sentences in this article on original languages of Azarbaijan, i.e. north western Iran is useful. Xashaiar (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue relates to "Azari", but that is not relevant to this article. A hatnote might be sufficient to redirect to Azari language, but a whole section devoted to an Iranian language here is inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported the anon IP for edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote directs an interested user to Azari language, where the anon IP's rant properly belongs. --Taivo (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani as an official court language of the Safavid Empire

This statement in the article is not true. This turkic language had no official state in the safavid empire. All documents, decrees, orders, books and every written document related to this dynasty had been written in persian language. Not even a SINGLE LINE of a turkic language document exists from this dynasty. Azerbaijani was used only as a spoken language in the Safavid courts along with persian and georgian.(Siavash) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.118.77 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This information is wrong. Safavid Shah İsmael,, known as Hatayi, has many poems that written in Turkish. Also, there are letters stored in Turkish archives that sent to Selim the Grimm in pure Turkish by Ismail. Letters could be classified as an "official document". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.98.157 (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Azeri Turkish                           TURKEY turkish

Yedi iqlimə oldi hökmũ fərman Yedi iklimə oldu hükmũ ferman Əzəldən yoluna can-başî fədadir Ezelden yoluna can-başı fedadir Ki, hər kim on iki imami bildi Ki, her kim on iki imami bildi ona qīrmīzī tac geymək rəvadur ona kīrmīzī tac giymek revadır

A poem of Ismail dates back to year 1512. As you see, Turkish and Azeri are same languages.

Vocabulary

In the Vocabulary section, would it not be helpful to contrast the Azeri words with Anatolian Turkish?
Varlaam (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A question about the language

Turkish speakers of Azerbaycan, South Azerbaycan-Iran, Iraq, Caucauses, Syria, Turkey, Balkans, Cyprus can fully understand each other.

I don't understand how they're considered different languages to each other?

I mean there is more difference between the accent of a Londoner and Geordy from Newcastle in North England than between these accents.

It should be highlighted that they can understand one-another and that the Turkish of the different countries who speak Oghuz Turkish isn't a different language.

Currently its not very clear, to someone who didn't know anything about this they'd think a totally different language was spoken which is incorrect.

--Johnstevens5 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

according to the foreign minister of iran 40% of the iranian people speak turkish! so you are right, first it is one and the same language secondly the stats given in this article are not correct. here is where the minister says it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc9WJ9U2uHo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.241.74 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

== 1300 Anniversary of Dede Qorqod is a big lie===

This is a big lie. This book has the name "Istanbul", which is a term after the Muslim conquest of Constantinopole. This conquest occured about 500 years ago and so the book at best could be dated 500 years ago. The Azerbaijani government authorities have falsified history in an outrageous fashion and this is unacceptable to the scholarly community.

No its not a big lie and its accepted by UNESCO so sort out your anti-Turk issues with them.

Azerbaijani and Turkish are two languages, from the same origin!

I speak both Azerbaijani (native from Iranian Azerbaijan) and Turkish. Both Azerbaijanis and Turks call themselves Turks and probably because the Turks in Turkey were numerically superior and more famous they got to be known as Turks and while Azerbaijanis stayed anonymous as Turks so they had find themselves a different name so they said they are Azerbaijani Turks, or Azeris (though Azeri was invented by the Soviets and Iran probably to separate the Azerbaijani Turks from Turkey).

My Turkish (Trukey Turkish) is not that good but let me try to give one simple example to show how these are two different languages. However if someone learns the different parts, he/she can understand both languages very easily probably in a couple of weeks because the differences are small.

Consider this sentence:

English: I found a chicken and grabbed it by its legs and went down to the second floor.

Azerbaijani: Mən bir toyux tapdım və qıçların'dan tutub düşdüm ikinci mərtəbəyə.

Turkish: Ben bir tauk buldum ve paçaların'dan tutup indim ikinci kata.

Although I tried to find some striking differences the example shows that it must be really difficult to say Azerbaijani and Turksih are one language. Bm79 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but where does the article state that they are the same. As far as I can see it is in complete agreement with what you are saying. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to be relevant to the talk-page where some were saying that they are the same :) Bm79 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you pointed out very important thing. If we just looked at these sentences(above), Azerbaijani and Turkish seem very different, no common word but, yet we have same words but meanings are different. for example; in azeri wiki, you'll see "açık ensiklopediya", in turkish "özgür ansiklopedi" and that means "free encyclopedia". In Azeri, the western(tecnological) terms and words come from Russian, in Turkish from French. So some words are different. And açıq means open in Turkish but in Azeri it means free. lets look up. Mən-------Ben (nearly same) bir-------bir (same) toyux-----tavuk (true one is that, not tauk) tapdım------buldum (yeah this is really different and means find) qıç---------bacak (qıç means ass or back in Anatolian Turkish, but it means leg in Azeri) tutub-------tutup (nearly same) düşdüm------indim (düşmek means to fall in Anatolian Turkish) ikinci-------ikinci (same) mərtəbəyə----kata (mertebe means level or grade in Anatolian but as you see it means floor in English)

So, yeah we can use different words for same meaning but if you are good at Turkish, you can figure out what it means easily. But you need to know synonym words of Anatolian Turkish. I can understand Azerbeyjani wikipedia clearly but i cant claim the same for kyrgyz wiki or kazakh. Azeri and Turkish are closer than you suppose dude.--96.42.237.249 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, Azerbaijani and Turkish are same language. There are only little differences:

Ayrılıq (Azerbaijani)

Ayrılık (Turkish)

Bu gün, yenə hər sabah olduğu kimi, Oyanmaq istədim öpüşünlə. Amma, yoxsan. Ah çəkib yandım, həsrətinlə. Bu gün, dərdə çarə olan dərman kimi, Aldım rəsmini əlimə. Baxdım, baxdım. Ah çəkib yandım, sənsizliyimə. Hanı o bir cüt bəla dediyim qara gözlərin, Könlümü oxşayan şirin-şirin gülüşlərin. Hanı, o əllərimi tutan əllərin, Mənə ümid verən o xoş sözlərin. Ayrılıq, yenə dərdli başıma gəlib tac oldu, Ayrılıq, səni məndən alıb, gözümü yaşlı qoydu. Ayrılıq, yenə dərdli başıma gəlib tac oldu, Ayrılıq, səni məndən alıb ümidsiz qoydu. Anladım, artıq geri dönməyəcəksən. Amma, bir tək təsəlli var. Səndən mənə, Yadigar qalan xatirələr var. Hanı o bir cüt bəla dediyim qara gözlərin, Könlümü oxşayan şirin-şirin gülüşlərin. Hanı, o əllərimi tutan əllərin, Mənə ümid verən o xoş sözlərin. Ayrılıq, yenə dərdli başıma gəlib tac oldu, Ayrılıq, səni məndən alıb, gözümü yaşlı qoydu. Ayrılıq, yenə dərdli başıma gəlib tac oldu, Ayrılıq, səni məndən alıb ümidsiz qoydu.

Bugün, yine her sabah olduğu gibi, Uyanmak istedim öpüşünle. Ama, yoksun. Ah çekip yandım, hasretinle. Bugün, derde çare olan derman gibi, Aldım resmini elime. Baktım, baktım. Ah çekip yandım, sensizliğime. Hani o bir çift bela dediğim kara gözlerin, Gönlümü okşayan şirin şirin gülüşlerin. Hani, o ellerimi tutan ellerin, Bana ümit veren o hoş sözlerin. Ayrılık, yine dertli başıma gelip taç oldu, Ayrılık, seni benden alıp, gözümü yaşlı koydu. Ayrılık, yine dertli başıma gelip taç oldu, Ayrılık, seni benden alıp ümitsiz koydu. Anladım, artık geri dönmeyeceksin. Ama, bir tek teselli var. Senden bana, Yadigar kalan hatıralar var. Hani o bir çift bela dediğim kara gözlerin, Gönlümü okşayan şirin şirin gülüşlerin. Hani, o ellerimi tutan ellerin, Bana ümit veren o hoş sözlerin. Ayrılık, yine dertli başıma gelip taç oldu, Ayrılık, seni benden alıp, gözümü yaşlı koydu. Ayrılık, yine dertli başıma gelip taç oldu, Ayrılık, seni benden alıp ümitsiz koydu.

--78.191.46.52 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They are literal languages, but they are dialects of the Turkic language in classification. --85.102.131.211 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani is the easiest-to-learn Turkic language

Because:
The suffixes generally do not change the roots. There are only two exceptions:
1- The nouns ending with /q/ and /k/ change before the suffixes beginning with a vowel: pişik + i > pişiyi, toyuq + u > toyuğu.
2- The verbs get-, et-, güt- and all multi-syllable verbs ending with /t/ change before the suffixes beginning with a vowel: get - ir > gedir, unut - ar > unudar etc.

There is also haplology but for example you may say çiyinində instead of çiynində; both of them is OK in Azerbaijani language.

Azerbaijani follows the vowel harmony rules more than Turkish does:
Turkish saatler - Azerbaijani saatlar, Turkish yoldaki - Azerbaijani yoldakı etc.

Azerbaijani is very regular and mostly can be understood clearly. Look at the comparison between Turkish and Azerbaijani:

Turkish adamım 'I am a guy' and 'my guy' - Azerbaijani adamam 'I am a guy', adamım 'my guy'.
Turkish kuruyor '... is setting up' (< kur-) and '... is drying' (< kuru-) - Azerbaijani qurur '... is setting up' (< qur-), quruyur '... is drying' (< quru-)
Turkish dolar '... fills' (< dol-) and '... coils / weaves' (< dola-) - Azerbaijani dolar '... fills' (< dol-), dolayar '... coils / weaves' (< dola-).
Turkish bilmem 'i don't know' and 'my knowing' - Azerbaijani bilmərəm 'i don't know', bilməyim 'my knowing'.
Turkish başlar 'heads' (< baş) and '... begins' (< başla-) - Azerbaijani başlar 'heads' (< baş), başlayar '... begins' (< başla-). --85.102.240.162 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the reasons why your statement is just so much crap, the Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article, and not a FORUM or SOAPBOX. Don't post material like that here again unless you have a scholarly source to back it up - which you aren't going to find. 14:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Güt- is not correct, it is güd- in Azerbaijani. --88.238.174.188 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please reflect these, in the main article. Pan-Irannist (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Location of Azerbaijani Speakers

There are no Azerbaijani speakers in Armenia, at least none you can find from official data. The map is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.61.24 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Major section missing

As it stands, this article contains virtually nothing about the grammar & structure of the language! The reader coming fresh to this subject would learn something about the sounds & spelling—but nothing about the language itself (apart from the fact that it's somehow related to other Turkic languages). It would be very helpful if someone could provide at least a sketch of the grammar, perhaps pointing out the similarities with & differences from (Anatolian) Turkish. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there wouldn't be because it would blow the argument of these being separate language apart. The reality is, Turkish of Turkey and Azerbaijan are a 'Dialect continuum' the Turkish spoken shifts to the accent spoken in Azerbaijan within the borders of Turkey. From Elazig/Erzurum to Kars/Igdir the accent/dialect is Azerbaijan Turkish. This article is totally bias and neglects people living in places like Elazig,Erzurum, Kars, Igdir whose Turkish according to this article is a different language! It's like saying the English spoken in Scotland or Ireland isn't English... ridiculous.

--109.144.170.123 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Torki?!

Im an Azerbaijani from Republic of Azerbaijan and I've never heard someone call our language "Torki". It's how Persians call it, due to ignorance or whatever. If we recognize Persian name as an official one, then let's then also write "Azerbaijani, or Torki, or Русский язык, or Aserbaidschanisch, or Azerbajdzanse Taal" and in another 25 languages. I hope my point is understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.218.56 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 'Torki' (ترکی) is the name of this language is Persian, however, 'Türki' (تورکی) is the name that Iranian Azerbaijanis use to refer Azerbaijani language in Azerbaijani language. So it must have a place in between the local names. موسا (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My recent contribution to the article

I removed the phrase "North Azerbaijani" from the infobox since the language is officially known as, simply, "Azerbaijani" by the government of Azerbaijan. Secondly, Azerbaijani is officially written only in the Latin script. While some forms of Azerbaijani might be written in other scripts in other countries, those forms are not officially recognized or sanctioned. I also fixed a minor grammatical error in the opening paragraph and added that the language is also spoken, natively, in Eastern Europe. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What does "officially written" means? In Iran we have many magazines, books and newspapers which publish in Arabic script. Right now you can find hundreds of websites in Arabic script (for example see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in Afghanistan), 6 (in Afghanistan), 7, 8, ). This Arabic script has far more age than Latin script for Azerbaijani (A millennium against at most a century) and it has far more users (15-20 million only in Iran). So why shouldn't it be listed?! موسا (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Azerbaijani language, in the Arabic script, is not officially regulated by any national body/institution. The only variety of Azerbaijani that is officially regulated by a national body/institution is the Latin-based Azerbaijani language of the Republic of Azerbaijan. For example, there are many people who use the Roman alphabet for Arabic, but the inclusion of this information in the infobox of the Arabic language article wont make sense, since Latin-based Arabic is not officially sanctioned. Do you see what I mean? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but I think not having a regulation institution does not mean not recognizing the script. The Latin script for Azerbaijan did not have a regulation institution until one or two years ago, too. And the Arabic script, although does not have an official regulation organization, but there was community attempts and their results are widely accepted. For example two orthography sessions was held by linguists to regulate the script and the result (which is available here) is now widely in use by almost everyone. موسا (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of recognition, is Iranian Azerbaijani officially recognized by the government of Iran? I ask this because I don't think it is but I'm not so sure. In my opinion, therein lies the main difference between Latin-based Azeri and Arabic-based Azeri; the former happens to be officially recognized and sanctioned by a national body/institution whereas the latter is really neither recognized by any country nor sanctioned by any national body/institution. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No despite being used by more than 15 million people, it has no official status or recognition in Iran. Actually Iran only recognizes the official language of Persian, while having more than 75 native languages, and this has only political and security reasons (as they think) and is not related to languages' use, power, extent or anything. So not being recognized by Iran, means nothing to language itself. The fact is Arabic alongside Latin is a very widely used script and this fact should not be removed from this article. You can see this in other languages too. For example look at Kazakh language, it lists Perso-Arabic script too, although it is just being used by only thousands of people in China. Or see the same in Uzbek language which has the same status and its Arabic script is only being used in China and Afghanistan with far less people than the users of Arabic script of Azerbaijani in Iran. موسا (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. You made some valid points. I've re-added Cyrillic and Arabic to the infobox. Have a nice day. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) موسا (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon for interruption . Although the matter of debate seems to be ended in previous dialogue , but I can add the fact the recognition of Perso-Arabic script Azeri depends on definition . Article 15 of Iranian constitution states that using the local languages is free , and it can be considered a form of recognition . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The dubious tags

I see that several dubious tags were thrown around the article. I'll have them removed from this article within the next couple of days unless they are discussed. I'll start. First and foremost, it's not dubious that Azerbaijani is spoke in Eastern Europe. I added this information to the article after I found that the article only mentioned Azerbaijani was spoken in Western Asia. It's a fact that Azerbaijani is not only spoken in Western Asia but in Eastern Europe too. Azerbaijan is a transcontinental country that is partially situated in Eastern Europe, not to mention the fact that Azerbaijani is also spoken in Dagestan, which is completely situated in Eastern Europe. Therefore, unless this can be proven wrong -- which it couldn't -- then I'll have this tag removed from the article either tomorrow or the day after. But just to cut all the doubt, I'll provide a source, which I'll not add in the lede paragraph since that's not required according to Wikipedia bylaws. Instead, I'll add the source in the next section of the article.
Now regarding Ethnologue, I'd like to question why a dubious tag has been added to it. It is, by far, the most reliable source on language statistics in English, second to none. Unless someone can provide us with a better source in the English language, I'll have this tag removed as well. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I found two sources for the first dubious tag regarding Azerbaijani's presence in Eastern Europe. I'll have them added tomorrow morning. Good night everyone! :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of tags in the article

I have removed a couple of tags from the article as they are no longer needed. One of the editors had an issue with the article mentioning that Azerbaijani is spoken in parts of Eastern Europe and has added a dubious tag next to the term, but this was removed after sources were provided to verify that Azerbaijani is, indeed, spoken in parts of Eastern Europe, which includes Dagestan and Azerbaijan. Therefore, the dubious tag is no longer needed in this case. Another tag, related to the wording of the last part of the opening sentence, has been removed as the wording has been changed. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please just be specific and encyclopedic and say that it's spoken in the Caucasus and Northern Iran and wherever. Applying broad vague terms like "Eastern Europe" and "Western Asia" is not going to help reader in the least. Caspian region is not exactly anyone's first association on the term "Eastern Europe", to say the least. Our own article Eastern Europe in the second sentence says that The term has widely disparate and varying geopolitical, geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile. Parhaps it is sourced, but it's unhelpful at least. No such user (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of these wordings:
1. Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in parts of Eastern Europe (the Caucasus) and Western Asia (northern Iran) by the Azerbaijani people...
2. Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in the Caucasus region, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, by the Azerbaijani people...
? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording 2. No such user (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll have it changed right away. Thanks for contributing, I've longed for some contribution in the talk page. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dialects

There is a new article on the dialects of this language but the user who opened it is too jealous for anyone (or perhaps only me :-) to edit it. So I thought the people who are interested in Azerbaijani language could try their chances to develop that new Wikipedia article, relate it here, with this main article, and not to leave it to one user who cannot own it, by definition. Regards to all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I built this article in 22:43, 26 July 2014 [1]. and you instead of transmitting, created entries in new page ([2] 07:16, 27 July 2014). plz see WP:R--Samək^Talk 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was simply trying to move the article to the correct English title; I just got confused, and explained it in the edit summaries. Am I telling you how to make indents? Stop owning a lousy text and let people develop it. Have you ever heard of a "collective effort" (I mean on voluntary basis)? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes can happen but the new article should be deleted as it would confuse the readers. Furthermore I find the entire section in this article questionable. My concerns are as following:

1. Section 4 (Varieties and dialects) and section 5 (Varieties) should be merged as both are on the same subject.

2. Azerbaijani doesnt have 2 language classifications. Its 1 language, with 2 dialects (North- and South Azeri) at best. So the entire varieties section (which is unsourced) needs to go.

3. Ethnologue is a useful site but its the only source (that I could find) that mentions so many dialects within the Azeri language. This section would make us believe that Baku, Lankaran, Guba, all have different dialects? I think they meant accents, not dialects. A dialect suggests a difference in pronunciation (and more importantly) grammar, whilest an accent is only based on pronunciation. For example someone from Baku and Lankaran have as much as accent difference as someone from New York and Boston. So its not a dialect, but accents. And how relevant is it to mention so many accents?

Therefore I suggest to adjust the article on several points. There is 1 Azerbaijani language, which has 2 dialects (North- and South Azeri), and a dozen accents. Mursel (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Better go to edit the article (I mean stub) and let's close this discussion here. I will also edit if that user acts more civically. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussions related to the neutrality of the article's introduction

Such discussions could be found under the section titled "Lead Restoring" and may be continued there or in this section. Thank you. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead Restoring

Hallo
I restored the article's lead and template to the last stable version before the edit war started by User Kutsuit. Please feel free to discuss the content of the lead here, and change it after consensus has been reached. Alex2006 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive editing and blanking vandalism. A consensus has already been reached and your understanding of an original text is invalid. Furthermore, do not attempt canvassing as that is against Wikipedia policies and will get you in a lot of trouble. Lastly, address the content, not the person. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what has transpired between Alex2006 and Kutsuit, but a quick look at the events gives me the impression that the block on Kutsuit was ill placed and perhaps hastily done under emotional stress.

As for the matter at hand. When I look upon the last revert, I believe that the reference to Caucasia as "Southwestern Asia" is incorrect. The Caucasus has always been described as a region between the Europe and Asia. This article should reflect that reality. Fruthermore, the inclusion of number of speakers would be a welcoming addition. Lastly the term "North Azerbaijani" in the infobox is incorrect. The North Azerbaijani language doesnt excist, its simply Azerbaijani.

My suggestion to solve this issue with the following lead:

Azerbaijani or Azeri is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in the Caucasus region, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, by the Azerbaijani people. The language is indigenous to the Northern Iran (12 to 15.5 million speakers), Azerbaijan (9 million speakers), Georgia, Russian Caucasus, eastern Turkey and small parts of Armenia (6 million speakers). Mursel (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Mursel, and thanks for joining this discussion! No, the problem - which one solves here in the talk page, and not edit warring - is exactly this. Caucasus is at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, but south Caucasus lies in Asia (see the excellent article Boundaries between continents about that), and Azerbaijan, which is a transcontinental country, lies mostly in Asia. This is a fact, a geographical fact, which depends on the geographic definition of the boundary between Asia and Europe, which is a conventional one: the border is the watershed of Caucasus, and is used since about 150 years. I stress that here we are talking only about physical geography, not political or cultural collocation, where things are quite different. The same of course is valid for Georgia, while Armenia is geographically fully an Asian country (and, btw, this is the consensus reached on the Armenia talk page). Now, if we are talking about the geographical distribution of the Azeri people, there is a part (almost all the inhabitants of Azerbajian, plus those who live in Iran, Georgia, eastern Turkey and Armenia) which lives in Asia, and the other part which lives in Europe. I think that the lead should reflect this fact, and we should have something like that:

Azerbaijani or Azeri is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in Western Asia (most of Azerbaijan, Iran...), and Eastern Europe (rest of Azerbaijan, Russia, etc.) , by the Azerbaijani people.

The old lead was for sure incorrect (there is no mention of Europe), the new lacks of precision. Alex2006 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the focus on continents in an article about a language. I think the focus should be on the countries, or parts of countries, where the language is spoken. I think the place for describing in which continents Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia lie is in the country articles, not the language article. CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This can be an alternative approach, Corinne: we forget Europe and Asia and list only the countries where the language is spoken. The same approach is used for example at German Language. Alex2006 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always been cautious when it comes down to continents. Terms such as "Middle East" and "Europe" have a more historic and mainstream narrative, rather then a pure " physical geographic" perspective. If we look at the subject from a geographic standpoint, there is no Europe or Asia. There is only Eurasia, at least according to Russian educational system. That being said, I agree with CorinneSD's proposal, however I do suggest we add at least the Caucasus region (this much we know at least for certain).

Another point I want to raise is the number of Azerbaijani speakers in Iran. Obviously this is a hotly disputed subject but bare with me. I looked over the sources and according to the first source (CIA World Factbook) the percentage of Azeri speakers is 18% of the total population of Iran. That should bring the number to at least 14.4 million people (80 million Iranians x 0.18 percentage Azeris = 14.4 million speakers). So the "minimum speakers" stands at 14.4 million, whilest the "maximum speakers" is even further disputed. There are genuine sources (Brenda Shaffer, James Minahan, Ali Gheissari, Rasmus C. Elling) which note the considerable lack of consensus and set the number of Azeri speakers as high as 23,24,27 million. The article must reflect the disputed statistics, without chosing any side. Therefore I suggest the following:

''Azerbaijani or Azeri is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in the Caucasus region by the Azerbaijani people. The language is indigenous to Northern Iran (14.4 to 23-27 million speakers), Azerbaijan (9 million speakers), Georgia, Russian Caucasus, eastern Turkey and small parts of Armenia (6 million speakers). Mursel (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For me mentioning Caucasus is ok, but this mountain range (like the others :-)) has two slopes. The northern slope belongs almost totally to the Russian Federation, and for a small part to Azerbaijan and Georgia. According to Ethnologue, in 2010 there were 473,000 Azeri speakers in the Russian Federation, mainly in Daghestan. I don't know how many Azeri speakers live in the north Caucasus regions of Georgia (in the whole country for Ethnologue there were 360,000 speakers in 2007) and of Azerbaijan: always according to this Ethnologue map, which shows other languages in the area, they should not be many (another half million?). So, we should have one million Azeri on the northern slope and 30 - 40 millions on the southern slope. Due to that, I would suggest:

''Azerbaijani or Azeri is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in the Southern Caucasus region by the Azerbaijani people. The language is indigenous to Northern Iran (14.4 to 23-27 million speakers), Azerbaijan (9 million speakers), Georgia, Russian Caucasus, Eastern Turkey and small parts of Armenia (6 million speakers).

The adjective "southern" prevents the reader to imagine an uniform distribution of the speakers along the two slopes. That is, it prevents undue weight.

Moreover, I have a question. Does Northern Iran belong to the Caucasus region too? If not, we should say "...spoken primarily in the Southern Caucasus and Northern Iran..." Alex2006 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Mursel's version. There are many readers around the world who only have a vague idea where the Caucasus region is. They would not even know that there are two ranges within the Caucasus region, so the phrase "Southern Caucasus region" would not help much. Also, Mursel says that in 2010 "there were 473,000 Azeri speakers in the Russian Federation" -- presumably this is the northern part of the Caucasus -- so it would be accurate to say that Azeri is spoken in the Caucasus region. I don't believe that northern Iran is included in "the Caucasus region", but someone can check that. Another thing I would like to say is that I don't think the figures for numbers of speakers is needed in this sentence. The figures can be given later -- either later in the lead or in a section giving more details. I think just the list of regions and countries where Azeri is spoken is enough for this sentence. (It also looks odd to give numbers for some of the countries/regions and not others.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, first I must precise two things: I did not write "two ranges", but "two slopes": each mountain chain in the world - Alps, Andes, Himalaya, etc. - has a main range, and this range has two slopes, also named versants, and I think that everyone in the world knows it. Second, I wrote that the Azeri in north Caucasus are 473,000, to support my thesis, not Mursel. :-) . I don`t think that the insertion of the adjective "Southern" lowers the comprehension of the readers, but gives much more information, which is our aim. In northern Caucasus the Azeri speakers are only a small minority, largely concentrated in a small region (Daghestan), amidst millions of people speaking other languages. What would you think about the following sentence? "Southern speakers of the German language live in the alpine region." This is technically true, but 99% of the southern speakers of German live north of the Alps: south of the Alps there are only the inhabitants of south Tyrol, otherwise there live overwhelmingly Italians. Omitting the adjective "northern" changes totally the information conveyed by the sentence, and the same happens for the Caucasus. Regarding your other observations, I agree with you. Alex2006 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

South Caucasus is certainly more accurate but as CorinneSD said, most people have a hard time locating the Caucasus anyway. So I worry that the average reader might get confused when we start using terms such as South Caucasus. Perhaps we can use the term Caucasus but link the page to the South Caucasus article. This way the information doesnt confuse people and yet redirects them to the South Caucasus article.

As for the extension of the Caucasus, if I remember correctly Northern Iran and even Eastern Turkey are part of the Caucasus mountain range. So this shouldnt be an issue. Mursel (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that there was an article about South Caucasus. This solves the problem, because we can link the expression "South Caucasus" with the article, so confused people would read at once what the expression means. I would not link "Caucasus" with South Caucasus, since in that case people who know the meaning of the word and did not click on the link would be misled, not getting the "hidden" information. Another possibility is using (with link), instead of South Caucasus the word Transcaucasus, which I find even better, although the adjective "southern" is used 307,193 (and its synonym "south" 788,771) on Wikipedia, apparently without great problems. As alternative, we can always file a Request for Comment, asking if in this case it is preferable precision (as you said) or simpleness. Alex2006 (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with either. Will you adjust the article or should I? Mursel (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You can do it, you play at home :-) . BTW, are you from Baku? I am trying since years (actually, since I read a book of Tiziano Terzani where he praises the city and his gulf "as beautiful as that of Naples") to go there, but benim eşim :-) resists, although she understands 90% of what Azeris say, and her doctor is an Azeri too. Alex2006 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I am from Baku, yes. But I dont live there anymore. As for the comparison to Naples, I couldnt say. I have never set foot in Naples. However both cities have a partnership and are considered unofficial sister cities. So there must be some truth to it. Mursel (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Terzani is always right. :-) The book is "Goodnight, mr. Lenin" and describes his journey in the Soviet Union in August-November 1991, during the disintegration of U.R.S.S. Is is a classic, and in the chapter devoted to Azerbaijan there is also an interview with Abulfaz Elchibey before he became president. Alex2006 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus hasn't been reached regarding the notion that the South Caucasus is the geographic area where Azerbaijani is primarily spoken. There are at least four members who had no problem with the other sentence, which stated that it is spoken primarily in the Caucasus region (which includes the North Caucasus), at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Furthermore, it has been sourced. Until the dispute is fully settled, the lede sentence wont be changed unless others lose interest in the matter. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nadia Kutsuit, where else but the South Caucasus is the area where Azeri is primarily spoken? Off course its spoken by the Azerbaijani diaspora communities in Eastern Europe, but the language is "primarily" spoken in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan and North Iran are located in the South Caucasus, so I really dont understand your reasoning. Please explain. Mursel (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also the POV tag is unjust, just because two sentences in the introduction are disputed doesnt make the entire article disputed. Therefore I removed the POV tag. Mursel (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mursel, how are you? Please restore the tag as it wasn't a POV tag for the whole article. The tag said that the neutrality of the article's introduction is disputed, which is the case. Please restore it until the issue is settled. :-)
As for the sentence, I intend to mention that the region where Azerbaijani is primarily spoken is at the crossroads of two continents. It has already gained approval by 3 other members, excluding myself, so there's no reason why it was removed again, especially since it was sourced. Until this issue is resolved, the lede sentence shouldn't change in my opinion. Take care. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Swiss German - Azerbaijani Turkish

it's weird to see swiss people speak "Swiss German" although it is hard for germans to understand it, whereas azerbaijani language ist easily understood by every turkish people (in turkey, azerbaijan and iran). you can easily see that wikipedia is not following same standards.

please change the topic of this site to "Azerbaijani Turkish". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.58.159 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In Iran we call this language simply "Turkish" (تورکی - تورکجه) and not even "Azerbaijani Turkish". موسا (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The language vs. dialect problem is a notorious issue in linguistics and has no objective solution. We are dealing with entrenched tradition and the influence of politics and history here. No doubt, what are called German dialects covers a wide variety of West Germanic dialects with very limited intelligibility on average (i. e., when you pick two traditional rural dialects at random, they will likely differ substantially and inter-intelligibility will be poor, especially when topics concerning rural life are discussed, rather than modern subjects, where many Standard German loanwords will be used). Dialects from the geographical extremes will differ so radically that they will be effectively like different languages, except perhaps in the Central German belt (Moselle Franconian – which effectively includes Luxembourgish – and East Lusatian around Görlitz may not be that mutually unintelligible). (Don't forget, however, that divergent lexicon has a far greater effect than divergent grammar or phonology: even two dialects that differ only in lexicon and are otherwise completely identical can be mutually unintelligible.) All this is true even when Low German is excluded. The divergence of Central and Upper German dialects probably started already in Late Antiquity, easily before 500 AD, and Low German may well have diverged even slightly earlier. On the other hand, one would expect that Azerbaijani and Turkish only started to diverge from each other well after the Battle of Manzikert, perhaps in the Late Middle Ages, in the early Ottoman period. By this time, Swiss German was already well distinct from East Central German, the basis of Standard German. It does make more sense to think of "German" as consisting of a number of independent languages within the West Germanic family, although they did form a coherent dialect continuum as late as the 19th century and in parts even today. It is pure historical accident that we do not have six Continental West Germanic written languages – Austro-Bavarian, Swiss German, Central German, Ripuarian, Low German and Dutch – rather than only two, Standard German and Dutch, as all the named dialect areas historically possess separate written traditions. (There are even more, such as Cimbrian, Pennsylvania German and Vilamovian, although these are all fairly minor.) Even Swiss German consists of more than a single potential language considering the very divergent Walser dialects. Meanwhile, there is an additional emerging standard, Luxembourgish. So even Western and Eastern Central German could be separate. And finally, there's also Yiddish, linguistically also part of Continental West Germanic. That all those regional written languages were eventually suppressed by the 18th century is purely due to political developments. It is easy to imagine an alternative history where Azerbaijani and Anatolian Turkish are united under the umbrella of an overarching written standard. Only politics have prevented this, and if the Azerbaijani should ever decide that they wish to adopt the Anatolian Turkish standard, this can happen even here. I wouldn't be surprised if many Azerbaijani consider a separate Azerbaijani standard language rather superfluous. Such developments have happened before: Dialectisation and separation are both not rare developments. The language–dialect classification is far more ephemeral and subject to change than people realise. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is true that Azerbaijani and Turkish are the same language, however why should Azerbaijani be called "Azerbaijani Turkish". Why not calling Turkish "Turkey Azerbaijani" instead? ))) --Zidane-Materazzi (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image of alphabets and samples

I've removed the image with alphabets and samples, for several reasons:

“Chinese east Turkistan”: What language is that supposed to be? It is definitely not an orthography that was ever used in Xinjiang.

The whole list is of dubious quality, concerning both quality as well as typesetting. Proper sources should be provided for each sample.

Besides that it does not make sense to include text as an image (see Wikipedia: Manual of Style § Avoid entering textual information as images and Wikipedia: Manual of Style / Accessibility § Images). --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Scripts

I have removed some statements about the Latin script as it was the writer's opinion that the Latin script is better because it has the letters Azerbaijani needs. But the Latin script had to be a little modified, as in the case of Turkish, in order to adjust to some of both languages' sounds. Therefore, it seems like an opinion and should not be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anorersuaq (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing system and alphabets

Why is the explanation of the sounds of the Azeri language written using an ambiguous "A as in apple" system rather than API? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.238.123.116 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A sentence in the intro

The following sentence (added on June 23, 2015 [3]) seems slightly awkward: The largest concentrations of native Azerbaijani speakers are concentrated in respectively Iran (especially Iranian Azerbaijan) and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

I'm not going to edit it myself since I know little about the topic, but I think what is meant is something like: There are two varieties of the language, sometimes called North and South Azerbaijani. Native speakers of these two dialects are concentrated in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran (especially Iranian Azerbaijan), respectively. Or simply, like: There are two areas where Azerbaijani speakers are concentrated. One is the Republic of Azerbaijan, where Azerbaijani is the official language. The other is Iran (especially Iranian Azerbaijan), where there are more native speakers than in Azerbaijan, though the language does not have any official status. What do you think? — Gyopi (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the second one! :-) Gets the point the best out of the two and is of a better prose quality than how it's currently. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LouisAragon. BTW I'm saying “the Republic of Azerbaijan” first, not because I think it’s more important than Iranian Azerbaijan, but simply following the north-to-south order. — Gyopi (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since no one hasn’t edited this yet, now I’ll just edit it, tentatively. Feel free to re-edit it and improve it :) — Gyopi (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Samak

Ip falsified referenced content in [4] and [5]. I fixed them in [6] [7] [8]. User:Samak started edit warring and reverts my contributions without any valid reasons [9] [10] [11]. --116.70.247.106 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This Wiki is Not Persian Wikipedia. try edit legal. the population of Azeris are 24,226,940?Smarter?--Samək^Talk 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijani language. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209020322/http://www.masterliness.com:80/a/Azerbaijanis.htm to http://www.masterliness.com/a/Azerbaijanis.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/evan_j_siegel/IranTurk/IranTurk.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

/k/

/k/ appears only in words borrowed from Russian or French (spelled, as with /c/, with a k).

How should k in the endonym for Baku, "Bakı", be pronounced then? With /c/? Bakı is a native word in Azerbaijani. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AZ-TR dialect continuum

Is there any sources on mixed dialects (Azerbaijani grammar+Turkish vocabulary or Turkish grammar+Azerbaijani vocabulary)? Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of my relatives speak such a dialect (in Turkey). If there is such a map, it could be very useful to readers. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Phonology

Phonology stated in this page reflects Soviet-era practice. Needs a modern era source. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: What does that mean exactly? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Current speech do not match the phonology (especially front vowels and consonants with palatal and more front articulations) described in the article. I listened to Soviet era recordings and know young Azerbaijani people, and it slightly drifted away from the one stated in this article. Need newer sources. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: Did you mean phonetics? Because what you're describing doesn't sound like a phonological change.

What is wrong with our description of Azeri front vowels and palatal consonants?

The vowels section is sourced with a very recent source. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been phonetics. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: No problem. What about the rest? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

/e/ lowered a bit from raised mid to mid (still mid but now closer to open-mid), /æ/ slightly raised to near-open (open one is still an allophone, but not average point anymore, you would understand what I mean by comparing General American /æ/, which is strictly [a] in all positions, and Azerbaijani /æ/; Azerbaijani one is usually more retracted and raised than exact [a] point), and /r/ begun devoicing (this also occurs in Turkish) before final voiceless palatal sibilants. All occur in standard Baku dialect. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Also schwa reduction of /a/,/æ/ and /e/ (this is very recent but observable even among educated AzTV speakers). Erkinalp9035 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: The fact that you present no sources for this is problematic.

Are you saying that these changes happened in two years? Or that the speakers that were used as models in the 2016 source (that's very recent and certainly not from the Soviet era) spoke an outdated variety of Standard Azeri?

General American /æ/ isn't [a] and certainly not in all positions (it undergoes significant raising and diphthongization before nasals). Did you mean RP /æ/? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It is possible as Soviet speakers spoke in a more Russian-like accent. Q->G shift also happened in that period. We need a source with all speakers born after dissolution of USSR. Otherwise we cannot be sure that whether it is a Soviet-influenced accent (remember Armenians and Russians were majority in some districts of AzSSR due to open borders) or genuine native pronunciation. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: But is it actually the case? It's possible isn't good enough. Have you checked the source? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Любослов Езыкин: who seems to have access to the source. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is open access, I looked and come up with these:

"explains that female speak-ers tend to have a larger vowel space than men". This means vowels of masculine speakers do not extend to corners well. "The participants were volunteers that were selected based on the following criteria: born and grown up in Tabriz and using the Tabrizi dialect for daily communications," note they speak Tabrizi (i.e. South Azerbaijani). North Azerbaijani source needed as South Azerbaijani does not have a regulatory body. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I still insist that we need a North Azerbaijani source with all tested speakers born after dissolution of USSR. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: Right, I should've checked it myself (and I would if I'd notice that earlier). Thanks for the information.

What you're quoting applies to acoustic vowel charts, not the auditory ones like the one we have in this article.

I can't comment on that as I know nothing about Azeri dialectology. I think other wikipedians should join this discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

What are the vowels in the Standard (North) Azerbaijani language? Does anyone here happen to know? Are they any different from the vowels of the Southern dialect? Also, is the rounded mid vowel more open (as [œ]), or more closed (as [ø]) in the Northern dialect? I believe that the vowels from both the Southern and Standard (Northern) dialects should be displayed in order to differentiate the vowel pronunciations regarding the two dialects. Are there also any sources regarding the grammar/pronunciation/phonology of the Standard (North) Azerbaijani language? Or also regarding the Baku dialect as well? Any information would be helpful. Thanks. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For comparison, following may be useful. Soviet era, Shirvani-Dagestani: AzSSR anthem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PsDghCAw-g Modern era, standard Shirvani (aka AzTV speak): Əsgər Marşı https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZO9z5aAdZc Both are chorus recordings of speakers of then-standard dialects. Erkin Alp Güney 13:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Baku dialect is an unregulated evolution of Northern Azerbaijani (which has a standard regulated form nevertheless). Think of it being like MLE. Erkin Alp Güney 12:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Not "Northern" or "Southern" Azerbaijani but rather Caucasian Azerbaijani and Iranian Azerbaijani

Just like the culture, history and identity of these two distinct people are different, so is their language. To say that one is "Northern" and one is "Southern", is nothing but politically charged rhetoric, it is as to say that these people are divided and "North" plus "South" is equal to one. This is not the case historically, one region has always been called Azerbaijan, which is now called Iranian Azerbaijan, while the other was called at one point Caucasian Albania and later Aran and Shirvan. So historically and geographically saying North and South is incorrect, but not just that but also like I mentioned, this is politically charged and that is why I decided to change all the "South" to Iranian, and all the "North" to Caucasian. Migboy123 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IPA Mistakes?

The phonology seems to suggest that the sound represented by 'k' is /c/, but in the alphabet section it gives the IPA value for this letter as /k/ which seems to be marginal, should this say /c/ instead? Also, the phonology shows that the sound /q/ does not exist in the language and the sound written 'q' is in fact /g/. However, in the vocabulary section for numbers, 'soqquz' is transcribed as /soqːuz/ is this a typo? Should it not be /sogːuz/ instead? Thanks 2WR1 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is /q/ but realized in standard educated speech as /g/, /k/, or /x/ depending on surrounding sounds. soqquz would be pronounced /sok:uz/. Erkin Alp Güney 06:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Caucasian Azerbaijani"

In the article you write "Caucasian", and it is confirmed by the source where it says North: https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/azj ? And Modern Azeric – Salchuk, not "Caucasian" https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mode1262 V.N.Ali (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with V.N.Ali's comment. The sources given in the article, in particular Ethnologue, use the terms North and South Azerbaijani. For example, the change first made on 15 April: [12] by KhakePakeVatan (formerly known as Migboy123) from:

Azerbaijani is classified by Ethnologue as a "macrolanguage and North Azerbaijani (spoken mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Russia) and South Azerbaijani (spoken in Iran, Iraq and Syria) are each classified as separate languages

to

Azerbaijani is classified by Ethnologue as a "macrolanguage and Caucasian Azerbaijani (spoken mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Russia) and Iranian Azerbaijani (spoken in Iran, Iraq and Syria) are each classified as separate languages

along with all other instances in the article, is unsourced and contradicts the existing sources. In the talk page comment: Talk:Azerbaijani language/Archive 2 § Not "Northern" or "Southern" Azerbaijani but rather Caucasian Azerbaijani and Iranian Azerbaijani, an explanation was given, but this seems to be based on personal political analysis, and not on reliable sources. Employing the most commonly-used linguistic terminology for the language varieties is not a statement by Wikipedia that, for example, Iranian Azerbaijan is considered "South Azerbaijan".

The changes were reverted on 5 May: [13], and subsequently again on 12 May by Kwamikagami: [14]. That was undone again by KhakePakeVatan on 28 May: [15] with the comment "...there is no such thing as "North" and "South" Azerbaijan...". It was reverted once more by V.N.Ali on 14 August: [16], and again reinstated today by KhakePakeVatan: [17]. I have reverted that, and request KhakePakeVatan follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page, rather than repeatedly making the same edit when it's clear that other editors disagree.

Since there may well be future articles on the two language varieties, the WP:COMMONNAME should be used, "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", and following the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Any questions about neutrality should be addressed according to WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING.

In addition to Ethnologue, as noted in the infobox, the terminology is used by Glottolog: [18], and ISO-639-3: [19]. I did a search of Google Books, and it appears to be used by a very significant majority, including the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. In fact, it's difficult to find many examples of the use of "Caucasian Azerbaijani" as a language variety, apart from those that trace back to this article. --IamNotU (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Caucasian and Iranian Azeri are perfectly acceptable terms -- if you're writing your own paper. But that implies that the boundary in the Ethn. maps is real, and I seriously doubt that the isoglosses just happen to follow modern national boundaries. Ethn. has a tendency to do that, e.g. substituting Indian and Pakistani Punjabi for East and West Punjabi, even though they retain the latter names. We'd want a RS as to where the isoglosses lie before accepting such a division. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijan is not "South Azerbaijan", that is politically charged rhetoric that negates the historical naming and history of the region. The fact that Iranian Azerbaijan has had to add Iranian to it, in order to distinguish it from the Republic of Azerbaijan, is already a stretch. The region with historic rights to the name "Azerbaijan" is Iranian Azerbaijan but regardless of your opinion which negates this, I will address what you say. The terms "South" and "North" are politically charged and do not provide an adequate distinction between the two languages. Whilst, Iranian and Caucasian are better terms as they outline which language group/family the two sub-languages of Azerbaijani are closer to. E.g. Iranian Azerbaijani is closer to the Iranian languages due to its lexicon etc etc. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Writing system" in infobox

I made this edit to the "writing system" a.k.a. "script" entry in the infobox, which included adding citations and changing it accordingly to: "In Iran: Arabic script or Nastaʿlīq (Persian alphabet). For this I tried to follow the "script (alphabet)" pattern in the usage instructions for the "script" parameter: script = writing system(s) used to represent the language ← in the form script (instantiation), such as "Latin (English alphabet)".

The edit has been modified by HistoryofIran, with the edit summary "rv, disruptive": [20]. I don't feel that my sourced edit was in any way disruptive, and the modification has left a redundant statement that contradicts the given source: In Iran: Persian alphabet or Nastaʿlīq (Persian alphabet). I would like to invite comments and reliable sources in order to improve this.

There have been numerous changes to this parameter over the years. When first added in 2006, it said "Arabic alphabet" [21]. In 2007 it was changed to "Perso-Arabic script" [22]. That article was in 2011 renamed to "Perso-Arabic alphabet" and then "Persian alphabet" by Kwamikagami. At various times it has been changed to "Arabic script", and stayed that way for extended periods, e.g. in 2014: [23], or by amateur55 in 2015: [24], and most recently by 37.73.129.2: [25]. None of these edits have provided reliable sources, nor have they attempted to make a distinction between the script and the alphabet used, as recommended by the template instructions. The body of the article similarly gives no sources, and makes no distinction.

The "Arabic script" article states: The Arabic script is the writing system used for writing Arabic and several other languages of Asia and Africa, such as Persian, Kurdish, Azerbaijani..., while the "Persian alphabet" states: The Persian alphabet ... is a writing system used for the Persian language, which seems contradictory to the "Arabic script" article. There are various similar contradictory statements, all unsourced, in the "Persian language" article.

According to the Ethnologue source I added, the writing system for South Azerbaijani is: Arabic script, Naskh variant [Arab], used in Iraq and Iran. Arabic script, Nastaliq variant [Aran], used in Iran. It does not mention a particular alphabet. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics says: In southern Azerbaijan, where the written use of the language is highly restricted, the Arabic script is still used. It also references Arabic script as being used for Persian, Pashto, and Urdu, and sometimes uses "Perso-Arabic script" as a synonym. The phrase "Persian alphabet" is not found in the book.

--IamNotU (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: Hi. Sources won't necessarily match our wording because they might not define words the name. What matters is if they match our content.

For WP, per consensus after long debate several years ago, a 'script' is a distinct writing system. Thus, Arabic, Persian and Urdu are all written (primarily) in the Arabic script, sometimes called Perso-Arabic to better distinguish it from the Arabic alphabet, which is what is used to write Arabic (and is inadequate to write Persian).

An 'alphabet' is a variant of a script customized to a particular language. The English and Italian alphabets are both Latin script, but differ in some letters (e.g. Italian doesn't have <k>). The Persian and Urdu alphabets are Arabic script (or Perso-Arabic script, if you prefer), but have additional letters not found in the Arabic alphabet. Some Arabic-script alphabets omit Arabic letters that they don't need.

A 'hand' is a calligraphic variant. Cursive and printed English are the same English alphabet in different hands. AFAIK, Nastaliq should be considered a hand. Any of the Arabic-script alphabets can be written in Nastaliq hand, just as they can be written in Kufic hand or whatever. For Latin, Fraktur and Insular are generally considered hands rather than alphabets, but to some degree where you draw the line is a matter of opinion or definition. Confusingly, some people use 'script' to mean what we call a 'hand', but that leaves no word to ID a script. If we blindly copy the wording of a particular source, our use of these words becomes ambiguous and can be very confusing.

So, basically, Azeri is written in any of several Azeri alphabets. There are Cyrillic-based, Arabic-based and Latin-based Azeri alphabets, plus other marginal ones. (The Perso-Arabic Azeri alphabet may be essentially identical to the Persian alphabet, I forget.) For each alphabet, there tends to be a preferred hand, though people can play with those and it would just be seen as a stylistic choice.

— kwami (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, thanks for your reply. It clarifies some things and fits pretty much with what I understood before, although I'm not at all an expert, and seems compatible with the sources I've found. That is, the script being (Perso-)Arabic, and the alphabet being Persian (or close to it). I had tried to map Ethnologue's usage of "Arabic script, Naskh variant [Arab]" to the "Arabic script" article, and "Arabic script, Nastaliq variant [Aran]" to the "Nastaʿlīq" articles. But looking more closely at that and the linked descriptions from there to ScriptSource, both would be considered "Arabic script", with "Naskh" (mapping to Naskh (script)) and "Nastaʿlīq" being what they call "typographic variants", or what you've called a "hand". Maybe it could be simplified to: In Iran: [[Arabic script]] ([[Persian alphabet]]). I would have suggested maybe: In Iran: [[Arabic script|Perso-Arabic script]] ([[Persian alphabet]]), except that "Perso-Arabic script" redirects to "Persian alphabet" rather than "Arabic script" as I might have expected. I wish there was somewhere a clear comparison of the terms... Anyway, this would depend on it actually being written with the Persian alphabet, rather than some variant of it adapted to Azerbaijani, which I don't have a source for. --IamNotU (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Azeri has a well-established literary tradition in Iran, so it certainly has its own alphabet. Whether the letters of that alphabet are identical to those of Persian, so the two can be said to be the same alphabet, is a question for an article on the writing system. There are many many languages that have the same 26 letters as the English alphabet, after all, but we don't say there's no English alphabet because of that. That's a bit of sophistry, perhaps, a confusing of the alphabet itself and the orthography of how it's used, but not IMO is not worth getting into in the info box.

Naxs, BTW, is a calligraphic hand just as Kufic and Nastaliq are.

As for Perso-Arabic script redirecting to Persian alphabet, that's more bothersome. There are a dozen variants on that name. I'm redirecting them all to Arabic script.

Thanks for those changes. I modified the infobox as I suggested above. If you think we need to keep "a variant of", or some other improvement, go ahead... --IamNotU (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Dispute over Azerbaijani/Azeri name

Aqşin Abbaslı, could you explain why you keep changing these names? Several other editors seem to disagree. It's better to discuss any problems, rather than continuing to make the same edits. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Spit Azerbaijani?

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 Language

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

https://www.nytimes.com/1914/08/09/archives/pepys-of-india-curious-memoirs-of-the-venetian-dr-manucci-a-pepys.html - 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Irvine_(historian).

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolao_Manucci

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. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Asiatic_Society_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) Link to the book - https://archive.org/details/storiadomogororm04manu/page/n8/mode/2up

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?

Sincerely,

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 archive.org 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 188.158.73.89 (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 archive.org) 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:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281384/page/n2/mode/2up

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 https://www.amazon.com/Iran-Under-Safavids-Roger-Savory/dp/0521042518 _online version is free to search for this evidence.

Sincerely,

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)

IamNotU,

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.

Regards,

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