Jump to content

Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Iranian Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin."

[edit]

This once again. This doesn't makes sense. First dna research says Iranian Azerbaijanis are more related to the people of Georgia, than they are to other Iranians then it talks about Turkification and "massive migration of Oghuz Turks" etc. @Golden: do you have comments? Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what else I can add. I would hope that most people realize that this kind of simplification in the lead is not accurate. Currently, we have Azerbaijanis article saying that Azeris are a Turkic ethnic group living mainly in northwestern Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan, while this article states that they are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin. These statements contradict each other. Either this kind of simplification should not be included in the first paragraph of the lead, or it should be consistent with the main 'Azerbaijanis' article. — Golden call me maybe? 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think carry a mixed heritage of Caucasian, Turkic, and Iranian elements is problematic as well, it's synth. The problem here is, northern Azerbaijanis are Turkic (or partially) and southern are Iranian (fully Turkified), while those sources are combined with eachother. Beshogur (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking a sentence from the article about Azerbaijanis out of its context, please read the sentence in its entirety, it actually says :"In a comparative study (2013) on the complete mitochondrial DNA diversity in Iranians has indicated that Iranian Azeris are more related to the people of Georgia, than they are to other Iranians, as well as to Armenians". Mitochondrial DNA only comes to an individual from his/her mother, not the father. Besides, you seem to ignore what the rest of the section about genetics says, especially this part which is quite well-sourced : "Several genetic studies suggested that the Azerbaijanis originate from a native population long resident in the area who adopted a Turkic language through language replacement, including possibility of elite dominance scenario. However, the language replacement in Azerbaijan (and in Turkey) might not have been in accordance with the elite dominance model, with estimated Central Asian contribution to Azerbaijan being 18% for females and 32% for males. A subsequent study also suggested 33% Central Asian contribution to Azerbaijan." the second part is only about Turkey and Azerbaijan, not Iranian Azerbaijanis. Also, even the sources that support a quite high admixture from Central Asia never goes higher than 33% in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Sounds quite clear that Iranian Azerbaijanis' origins are local (Iranian, Caucasian, etc ...) but not Turkic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking a sentence from the article about Azerbaijanis out of its context do you mean "massive migration of Oghuz Turks"? I don't think this is about Republic of Azerbaijan. It's talking about Iranian Azerbaijan. Sounds quite clear that Iranian Azerbaijanis' origins are local clear where? So if 67% of their origins are locals, this makes them "Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin"? Also mitochondrial DNA doesn't mean anything. It's thousands year old dna from your mother's mother's (100x). Beshogur (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about what you said about Iranian Azerbaijanis being closer to Georgians than to other Iranians. All the things you're saying are your own interpretation, but you know very well how wikipedia works, we go by what the reliable sources say. The sources say that the process of language replacement was probably achieved with elite dominance, this is cristal clear about the origins of the Iranian Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we go by what the reliable sources say nah, I can't accept this synth.
  • Source [19] says: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris Which indicated both Turkic and Iranian elements.
  • Source [7] (Arakelova): I'm not sure what's the exact quote here.
  • Source [20]: Fine, two neighboring ethnic groups have genetic similarities. Exists everywhere in the world.
  • Source [21] (Frye): The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia says exact thing as source 19.
I don't see "Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin". This means "Iranic peoples" right? Otherwise genetic results show Persians are mostly descended from Iron age south Central Asians. Nobody calls them Iranian speaking Iron age locals. Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not mean that Azerbaijanis are "Iranic peoples", it means that they are a Turkish speaking people of Iranic origins.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I said, and it's technically incorrect. This Turkification isn't language shift only (cf. Urums, fully Turkophone Greek ethnic group) but intermixing as well. Still whole sentence is synth. Beshogur (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies that Iranian Azerbaijanis have some Central Asian gene pool admixture or that they are culturally turkified, but this is not enough to make their origins Turk. Also, you still seem to ignore the numerous sources that support an elite dominance model for the shift of language.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore? Do you think the only problem are those sources? So we should say Turkish people are Turkic speaking people with Anatolian origins or something? This sentence is synth, and should be removed. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what we should say about Turks of Turkey, this is not our problem here. You quoted some sources above which clearly states what i'm saying.
  • from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris This says that the Turkish identity of Azerbaijanis is mainly based on their use of the turkish language and them being Shiites.
  • The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. Being mainly descended from earlier Iranian populations literally means that they are of Iranian origins.
This has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that doesn’t make them “turkic-speaking of iranian origins” they are still ethnic turkics, ethnicity doesn’t work by “taking the majority of DNA compositions”. Even if they have just 1% turkic ancestry then they are qualifying to be ethnic turkic not “turkic-speakers of iranian origin”. A real time example of this is the ummayad caliphs of cordoba, there is no doubt that they were ethnically arabs, but also obviously the overwhelming majority of their DNA wasn’t arab:
The Middle East–born founder of the Umayyad dynasty in Spain, Abd al-Rahman I (reigned 755–788), was blond;Hisham I (reigned 788– 796) had very white skin and reddish hair; Muhammad I (reigned 852–886) had a pink face;…[src]
the same applies to the ottoman dynasty, again, there is no doubt that they were ethnically turkics, however there is also no doubt that they are genetically overwhelmingly non-turkic if there was even any notable turkic genetic component other than the paternal haplogroup in them after all these years. Because ethnicity is not defined by “taking the of majority DNA composition” or even considering DNA at all, it’s a social construct. [src] Qarabağın ruhu (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what the cited sources say, we have several high quality reliable sources that explicitly support that sentence you seem to disagree with.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically most Azeris, both from Iran and Caucasus are turkified. Azerbaijanis of the Caucasus have more native Caucasian ancestry, Azeris from Iran have more Iranic ancestry. The region is very mixed, many Caucasians mixed with Iranians historically and its reflected in Azeri ancestry. Jazz18lilly (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I advice to read the whole texts. Frye: A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia and The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter was to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they. You clearly ignore these. So they Turkified and suddenly vaporized? Do you understand this from this sentence? And yes it is. Those 4 sources are combined and made up sentence was placed before them. Beshogur (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, i see nothing supporting what you're saying. The Oghuz indeed Turkified Azerbaijan, but this does not mean that Azerbaijanis' origins were changed, it only means, as the sources say, that a new ethnicity appeared, based on the use of the Turkish language and Shiism. Your remark is WP:OR. And again, the sources all say the same thing : Iranian Azerbaijanis are of Iranian origins; no WP:SYNTH here...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My remark is WP:OR? As if I am trying to add something to the article. I am trying to elaborate something. Those authors tell formation of Azerbaijani ethnogenesis, they do not say "Iranian Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin". That's your interpretation. Beshogur (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you just don't know what the word "origins" means, check what the dictionary says about "being descended from". Frye says that Iranian Azerbaijanis are mainly descended from earlier iranian populations, it literally means that they are of Iranian origins.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"mainly" Aintabli (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, mainly, so what ? If you guys agree, we can change the lead and say that they are mainly of Iranian descent, which is exactly what the sources say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani, I'm saying this considering you're I suppose Persian descent(?). Based on this genetic research, a possible sentence like "Persians are Iranian speaking Bronze Age individuals from Iran" on Persians article is correct? See source [1]. (quote: Interestingly, the ancestry pattern found in Indo-Iranian speakers from Central Asia is not found in other Indo-Iranian speaking populations, namely, the Iranians Persians69. This ethnic group displays a genetic continuity since the Bronze Age with ancient individuals from Iran, with limited gene flow from the steppes (either Central or Eastern)69. Just some empathy. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep diverting from the subject? Because you run out of arguments? We are talking about Azerbaijanis here, not Turks or Persians. Besides, what you quote has already been said by several scholars, so yes, it's probably true, but how is it interesting here ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm trying to show how silly it is to make such made up sentences. I don't know who added it at the first place. Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: It was added by Wikaviani in January 2020. [2] — Golden call me maybe? 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at Qizilbash and Qashqai people, where sources mention that these groups mainly come from a certain stock, and it is reflected in the lead. Here, sources mention that they "mainly" descend from a certain stock, but the lead simply says they are of that origin. Aintabli (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because being of X descent literally means being of X origins, check the dictionary link i posted above.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was about the correlation between the lead and the rest of the article. I wasn't scrutinizing the terms used in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied after you added If you guys agree, we can change the lead and say that they are mainly of Iranian descent, which is exactly what the sources say. I "mainly" agree, but there might be some more changes. Need a bit time. Aintabli (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what "descended from" means, in another dictionary :[3]. Again, any change must comply with what the sources say, not with what we, as editors, think.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything about Frye here. The problem is the sentence on lede. And you still ignore A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia that comes afterward. Mainly doesn't mean all. Beshogur (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why I got such a comment twice, when I have not interpreted anything about the sources. I pointed out that much of the sources do not use a simplistic language, and that shall be reflected in the lead, which you have proposed just a few minutes ago. Aintabli (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure that we all agree about what "origins" means. @Beshogur : when did i ignore that sentence from Frye ? i said that indeed, Oghuz Turks Turkified to some extant, the Azerbaijanis, but this is not enough to change Azerbaijanis' origins, as the sources explicitly say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the main issue here is WP:WEIGHT. It's not about whether their Iranian origins are dominant enough to call them Iranian people, something that none of us here are qualified to research or determine. Instead, it's about the relevance of their genetic origins in the first paragraph of the lead. Most ethnic groups aren't defined by genetics. According to our article on Ethnicity, An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other based on shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. It's clear that these people identify themselves as Turks and their language as Turki. Thus, they identify with their Turkic elements. Calling them Turkic doesn't mean they have 100% pure Turkic DNA and I doubt most readers would misunderstand that. — Golden call me maybe? 17:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whole quote of Frye:
The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiʿites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty. They are settled, although there are pastoralists in the Moḡān steppe called Ilsevan (formerly Šāhsevan) numbering perhaps 100,000; they, as other tribes in Iran, were forced to adopt a settled life under Reza Shah. Other Turkic speakers—Turkmen, Qajars, Afšārs, etc.—are scattered in various regions of western Iran. The number of Turkic speakers in Iran today is estimated about 16 million. Most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves and are referred to as Turks but also insist on their Iranian identity, buttressed not only by the religious bond—being mostly Shiʿite in contrast to the Sunni Turks of Anatolia—but also by cultural, historical, and economic factors
Frye refers to other Turkic groups as "Turkic speakers" as well, thus Wikaviani's edit on Azerbaijanis is problematic as well, just based Frye's partial quote. Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You bold the part where Frye says that most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves Turks but you seem to ignore the part where he says that they insist on their Iranian identity. Also, we are not saying that an ethnic group is defined by its genetics, but said genetics allows us to better understand the Turkification process, i.e. the Azerbaijanis are not a mainstream Turkic group, like, for example, Ouzbeks, Kazakhs, Kirghizes, etc ... Indeed, they mostly speak Turkish as their first language, but their heritage is mainly Iranian, they celebrate Nowruz, speak Persian as their second language etc ... That's why, when Beshogur claims that Azerbaijanis are fully Turkified, this is his opinion, not the reality and that's not supported by most of the academic sources.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
, i.e. the Azerbaijanis are not a mainstream Turkic group who says that? They are, like any other Turkic speaking people. they celebrate Nowruz and? Kazakhs do celebrate it too. Persian as their second language is it because they are currently living in Iran? Why don't northern Azerbaijanis don't speak Persian anymore? So with this view, Turkish Kurds are half Turks as well? fully Turkified didn't knew there was a half Turkification. And "Iranian identity" is a vague word. Most likely they meant Iran itself. Qashqai or other Turkic peoples of Iran have an Iranian identity as well, meaning they're part of Iran, which is not an ethnostate. Beshogur (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what ? what do you conclude ? we cannot overshadow Azerbaijanis' mixed identity, and yes, celebrating Nowruz and speaking Persian means having a part of Iranian identity. Odd how Frye's sentence about Azerbaijanis' Iranian identity becomes vague suddenly in your mouth, but them calling themselves "Turks" is not. Also, for the Turkish gvt, yeah, Kurds are half-citizens, aren't they ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get the point. Iran is not an ethno state like Turkey. So everyone who is Turkish citizen is a "Turk". While everyone in Iran is Iranian. Beshogur (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything said here at this point is of no value to the article. These are all personal opinions and interpretations. Aintabli (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyway, the current wording of THIS article is closer to what the sources says and that's all that matters, the problem is that the Article about Azerbaijanis contradicts to some extant what is said here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure about that. Did we check whether each source is accurately reflected? Neither of the articles are in good shape. Aintabli (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this article, the Iranian Azerbaijanis are described as Persian Turks of Iranian descent, sounds pretty good to me, the cited sources are reflected accurately, but the insight of other editors might be useful too.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know for sure that Persian in this context mean Iranian, which means more in a geographical sense like Ajem Turkic, which means Persian/Iranian Turkic, not because Persians spoke them, but it was a variety spoken mainly in Iran. And you know that old name of Iran was Persia, thus citizens of Persia were all Persians. Beshogur (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i'm aware about how we call the citizens of Persia, but i don't get why you're talking about that.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions by Wikaviani

[edit]

I want to point out that how is Yunusbayev's research relevant to this? He doesn't even mention such thing. Only thing about Iranian Azerbaijanis is: Indeed, Turkic peoples closer to the SSM area (those from the Volga-Ural region and Central Asia) showed younger dates compared to more distant populations like Anatolian Turks, Iranian Azeris, and the North Caucasus Balkars. (SSM: South Siberia and Mongolia for clarification).

Also changing it to mainly isn't ok for me, as this is synth. Similarly, carry a mixed heritage of Caucasian, Turkic, and Iranian elements on Azerbaijanis article. Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when Frye says "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region" this is WP:SYNTH according to you ? How exactly ? WP:SYNTH is about combining several sources in order to imply a conclusion not mentioned by any of the sources, i don't imply anything that is not explicitly supported by the cited sources. Besides, i would like to draw your attention to the fact that Aintabli also agreed with those edits of mines you're talking about.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani Cropping sources is not a good practice. I have added more to the quote from the source you have added. It's important to check that. Aintabli (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Why have you "fixed source" i.e. removed the quote I added? Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because populations do not "overlap" here, the sources cited are more precise for this matter, it's about the origins of the peoples living in that area. Also my fix was intended to fix the issue with source 71 in this version.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do not "overlap" here You may want to check the quote included in the reference (Yunusbayev) you have added, because it uses the term "share" which is close to "overlap". I'm not really concerned with the wording. Feel free to tweak as long as it doesn't simplify details and misrepresent the source. I also stand corrected that your second removal of the quote was unintended. Aintabli (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arakelova is not a reliable academician.

[edit]

Obviously, we all know why she is used as a "source" in this article. Also this Ray guy? He has no idea what he is talking about, Iranian Azerbaijanis never refer themselves as Azeris. They refer themselves as turks. Blaxoul (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This site is neither a blog nor a forum, we go by what reliable sources say, so i suggest you do so instead of posting random messages about your POV.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Azerbaijanis are turks

[edit]

They refer to themselves as just "Turks", you can not call them by derogatory names such as Persian Turks etc. They have a strong national identity, they do not identify themselves with the Persians or Iranians. Please make the necessary edits. Blaxoul (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This site is not a blog, this is an encyclopedia where we go by what reliable sources say, read the cited sources, Iranian Azerbaijanis are mainly of iranian descent.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is nonsensical

[edit]
"Iranian Azerbaijanis...are Iranians of Azerbaijani ethnicity. ... They are mainly of Iranian descent."

Either or. Obviously controversial in ultranationalist regional debates, but this is enWiki, not a Baku or Teheran mouthpiece. Arminden (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page really needs reforming (Criticism)

[edit]

The political and nationalistic bias in this article is so strong, it is actually funny reading this from a neutral viewpoint. It feels like a bunch of kids debating over who a cookie belongs to. Someone really needs to work on this page, especially regarding the heritage part which seems absolutely nonsensical as of writing this. Just because something can be deemed as a source absolutely does not mean that it is true if the amount of sources contradictory to it are more than twice numerous. I thought we were trying to give an overview of a topic which ACTUALLY reflects reality, as Wikipedia. Really a worthless piece this page. I was reading about the history of Iran and just wanted a quick fact check but oh hell no they gotta make everything emotion-politically motivated in every little aspect regarding the absolutely great history of this area. Really a shame for people who are genuinely curious. Nomad108 (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? Al-Nawrouz (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_Azerbaijanis&oldid=1256398084"