Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Azeri Turks in Iran

In the introduction it reads Iranian Azeris, Persian Azeris. I also propse adding Azeri Turks. This is because of these sources which present them as such

The above sources are from well recognised professors, they are also western sources. Overall the term Azeri Turk should be added to the introduction also.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

In this changes [1] edited by user Tugrulirmak, 1-The citation is not under Wikipedia's rules . The title of any book , ISBN and other information of the book should be mentioned (Please see WP:CITE) . 2- About adding the whole chapter "Azerbaijan People's Government" to that place , first that in the historical time line , that event is many years after "Constitutional Revolution" and it was in Pahlavi era : Why it is included before constitutional revolution ?! Second , what does it have to do with this article that is not about the history and third why should we give a very large space in the article to that event ( one year out of thousand years of Azeri history in Iran ?!)3- The term Azeri Turks is very common in Iran itself , but in English language it may cause ambiguity with "Azeris in Turkey" that are different from other ethnic groups of Turkey and considered rather acem (see Ajam) or tat in Turkey (See the article Azeris in Turkey)
I will undo the changes until a consensus about the changes is reached --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly noone felt the need to discuss this with me untill I actualy conducted the changes and as you can see clearly above I opened it to discussion. So, thank you Alborz for actualy discussing and I hope we can reach a consensus. Yes indeed it is many years after the constituitional revolution. Therefore you may move the sub-section to below the constutional revolution. I also placed it under 20th century, therefore it doesn't matter if this was in the Pahlavi era becouse it is still 20th century. If this is not about history the article should not feature the persecution of Azeris in the Pahlavi era, for this is hisotry also. The establishment of an Azeri state in what is Northern Iran is a very big historical marker and one so recent no matter what.It is also supported by many sources which discuss Modern Iran, therefore should be placed in. The term Azeri Turks will not result in ambiquity in the English langauge for it says "Turks" not "Turkish" this, is you own POV. There are also many sources that support this, more than Persian Azeris and these are from well known western professors: In the introduction it reads Iranian Azeris, Persian Azeris. I also propse adding Azeri Turks. This is because of these sources which present them as such

Please keep these in mind and I hope we will reach a consensus but I worry how we will do that when there is only few of us. Thank you very much. Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an article about ethnicity and culture . What is the need for mentioning non-relevant controversial historical event ? Do you think is it relevant to include PKK in any article that discuss the ethnicity of Kurds ? or include Armenian genocide in any article about Turkey ?! More than that , it is a known way of Wikipedia to mention an event in it's own article and not to copy it in other articles (Also please see WP:UNDUE). Again I'm saying if you think you are going to mention a source , that has a format and you can not use the Google search format here : first name the book , then ISBN and etc . About the term "Azeri Turks" , can you please show me what is the determinating factor that shows we are not talking about a minority in Turkey that are ethnically Azeri (and not Turkish), and we are not talking about Iranian Azeris that are indigenous to Iran and Turkic language? For explanation , we (Iranian Azeris) are more ancient in time than Turkic tribes in Turkey , and our determining factor in Iran is only our language , so we use to name ourselves "Turk" in conversation . But it is very complex for a western outsider to understand this Turk is very different from a citizen of Turkey : not only in citizenship , but also in language , history and culture . So we may use the dominant word in English and not the way that it goes in Iran . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijan People's Government is the only time at which the Azeri population of northern Iran has established an autonomus state that, unlike the Safavids encompass the whole geographical and ethnic Iran. It was a recently established state and is not controversial as it is a fact that it existed. The use of it, like the inclusion of PKK in the Kurdish case, gives the reader a deaper understanding of the situation. Therefore it should not be omitted from this article. I can of course show you the determining factor that shows we are not talking about a minority in Turkey, my pleasure. If only of course, you can show the determining factor that indicates, we are talking about Azeris in Turkey. You "Iranian Azeris" are as ancient as the Turks of Anatolia so it does not make a difference. To think it is "complex" for a western outsider is just undermining their intelegence especialy when I have already provided 5 or so sources that state that Azeris in Iran are recognised as Azeri Turks. This type of Turk is not so different the language is very easy to understand and speak on both sides as they are both Oguz (I have been to Tabriz).Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

About the poppet state in Iranian Azerbaijan , giving weight to such Anschluss is a classic example of WP:UNDUE . Why should we give a chapter to that political cold war event in a cultural and ethnic article ? About the insistence for including the term "Azeri Turks" , overall I don't say that is wrong , but I think we have to explain it in the text that "Azeri Turks" [of Iran] are different with Azeri Turks [in Iğdır and Kars of Turkey].It is not relevant to our discussion , but as a reminder , if Iranian Turks of Seljuq dynasty did not defeated the Byzantine forces in Malazgirt , there would be no Turkic speaking state in Anatolia , and existence of Sultanate of Rûm was a branch of Turko-Persian Seljuqs , anyway the term "Turk" nowadays mostly refers to Turkey nation , but in historical usage and in ongoing lingual use in Iran , that term means a lingual group of Iranian nation , so in using the term we may mention the difference . Mutual understanding of language is not so important in grouping the people , as the Francophones all over the world are neither ethnically nor nationally French , or so many English language groups in world with no connection to Britain and etc.
At the end , I think we need other editors to express their opinion about this topic .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please bide by wikipedia no original research as you are trying to interpret what may happen, I have presented western reliable sources and thus it is up to us to include them. If you can present sources that say what you are saying then we will include those as well. As said before the APG is included to point out before Azeris had established a monoethical state this underlies the fact that azeris were subjected to nationalism at some point, qhich falls under what this article is covering. Lastly I totaly agree with you, we must have more editors they should not be of iranian or turkish/azeri origin as this will lead to a war of interest which we know will happen.Tugrul Irmak (cant sign due to me being on a phone, sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Steven R. Ward

According to his own claim: "Steven R. Ward serves in the Directorate of Intelligence." and "Steven R. Ward is a senior CIA intelligence analyst. See here: "CIA analyst Steven R. Ward shows that Iran's soldiers, from the famed Immortals of ancient Persia to today's Revolutionary Guard, have demonstrated through the centuries that they should not be underestimated. " [2] From 2005 to 2006 he served as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East on the National Intelligence Council, and he served on the National Security Council from 1998 to 1999. He is also a graduate of West Point and a retired U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel. ". This is not a WP:RS source as the person is not affiliated with any serious universities, and also given the CIA background, it is a WP:CONFLICT. WP:Conflict should be taken into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

His opinion may also be displayed? The CIA worked strongly against Iran and is now working. I think the description of events by the former CIA officer can be described in the article. Талех (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thats like the KGB talking about say Georgia. Also the book is not specialized towards the Shariatmadari incident. It is true that Shariatmadari has some support in Tabriz, but so did Khomeieni. Actually the people that put out SHariatmadari were Khalkhaali, Musavi and Khamenei (all Azeris..).. Overall he Shariatmadari issue did not have an ethnic perspective in my opinion. It is best to use neutral RS source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have presented many sources ranging from UNHRC to Amnesty International non of which were accepted due to "not being written by an author" not even to present opinion from sound sources. (I have contacted an administrator by the way.) therefore I see no reason as you why we should include his opinion. Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Kasravi

Please re-add the quote concerning Mr Kasravi. He is a well known professor and his opinions should be added. The DNA studies do not matter as this article is not concerning the Azeri gentics. It is concerned with some of the theories based on their origins. Now, as to my knowlege this indeed is a theory therefore should have its place. Lastly the article is supported by many sources which are more "stale" than Mr Kasravi's some are written in 1905 where as others talk about 1905 or 1940s. If we wan't to be consistent we either remove all these stale sources or we place others in, no double standards should apply. Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kasravi is not a Professor. He was a historian but many of his theories have been supplanted either by more recent studies or his own books. Also the article is not published in a peer-reviewed journal but a newspaper from 1922. That is not RS.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliabiity of www.ethnologue.com

www.ethnologue.com has no scholarly value and is a commercial website, it is .com It can not be deemed as a reliable source to reference from. Please look at WIKI:RS Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is reliable . Please see here : ethnologue.com.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although there is some dispute the general feeling is that its reliable. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Thanks again.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war and origins of Azeri Turks in Iran

Well, this page is on my watchlist and I saw that there's a big discussion going on here. I would like to say this page is not neutral. There are massive paragraphs on this article which are full of wrong information. Somebody is trying to prove the so-called Persian origins of the Azerbaijanis in Iran.(By the way, the name of this article is not English. Azeris in Iran and Azerbaijanis in Iran are the correct spellings and I'd prefer the latter.) -F.Mehmet (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the nuetrality of this article is under very serious quetion. The article is being limited from the other point of view by various editors and admins. This is truly against the spirit of wikipedia. I also agree that the Name of the article should be Azeris or Azerbaijanis not Azaris as this is not the correct way to spell the word in the English language.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, the correct spelling is Azerbaijanis. The main article of the people is called "Azerbaijani" - we should adjust the title of this article accordingly. Right now it seems like Azaris and Azerbaijanis are two different things. This is very misleading and confusing for the readers.Neftchi (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please archive this, it is becoming impossible to navigate.

Thank you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Claims of Cultural Suppression

I have discussed the reliabilty of the sources that I was going to use which were: Amenesty International Human Rights Watch United Nations Human Rights Council Report. The discussion was held here and it was concluded that the sources can be used if an intext explanation says that its their opinion and clearly informs the reader as so. Therefore I will be adding in the section. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculas first my edit was reverted by Kurdo777 on the grounds that "rv - per WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP - this is neither the place for this, nor are these claims supported by acadamia, and stuff about particular incidents belong WikiNews, or a Human rights page" however we discussed here that the sources were reliable and perfectly relevant for a page which also features ethnic status of Azeris in Iran. Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution. I'll let you conclude whats happening here...Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The admin placed an edit block so we can discuss and reach a consensus weirdly enough I see no-one discussing.Please do so. I have stated why the sources are reliable and so has others here: I realy don't see what the problem is. If it is the contents of the sources instead of their reliability that trouble you please say so.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for the removal of the material are invalid. I've said it once at the reliable sources noticeboard and I'm going to say it again, dismissing sources like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty is not an option available to editors of this article. Their reliability has been discussed countless times over the years. There is a consensus in the project that they are reliable sources with attribution. The details of the content to be added based on the sources can be discussed according to policy and guidelines, other sources that present alternative views or challenge Human Rights Watch and Amnesty statements can be added, but the sources themselves can't simply be dismissed and removed. That is not how it works. They are reliable sources with attribution and compliance with the WP:NPOV policy is mandatory and non-negotiable. I don't really understand why the article was fully protected. An edit following a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard followed by a revert isn't an edit war. It's part of the WP:BRD cycle. It could have been put under a WP:1RR restriction rather than fully protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Sources that are reliable should be used to represent each view. It is up to us, as editors to word how the sources and the views presented by them take place in the article; in a nuetral and well worded maner. Tugrulirmak (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Sean.hoyland, the reliability of Amnesty is besides the point here, I don't recall citing that as a rational, my main concern is the appropriate weight that should be given to relevant issues. Just because something is sourced does not make it a valid addition to any article, you know that very well. Please read WP:COATRACK to get an idea of what I am talking about. Wikipedia is not a place where one can cherry-pick and dump whatever "sourced" content one can find that suits his/her agenda, on any tangentially-related topic, under a POV-fork/redundant section with a loaded title. You must have missed the fact that this article already has a section called Ethnic status in Iran where such claims and counter-claims, are discussed in details. That section could be improved and expanded. But Tugrulirmak's additions, the way they were, under a loaded/POV section title, were essentially turning this page into a WP:COATRACK. As I said, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it'll automatically get inclusion and that's somehow "mandatory and non-negotiable". Kurdo777 (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine and I understand the concerns about coatracking but as I said, the details of the content to be added (in terms of its placement, weight etc) based on these sources can be discussed according to policy and guidelines. What can't happen is that these sources are excluded using the kind spurious arguments being made at reliable sources noticeboard about reliability, lack of named authors, the reports are fringe/unimportant, 'they're just a bunch of activists', other sources take different positions therefore HRW/AI are wrong etc etc because the fact of the matter is that, whether anyone likes it or not, these are highly notable and widely respected major organizations that are treated as reliable and notable by countless media sources and others. Excluding content from these sources is like excluding content from the ICRC or the BBC. The Ethnic status in Iran section could indeed be improved as it does not appear to comply with NPOV but I am not so much concerned with the details of how sources are used here as with ensuring that discussions proceed on the rational policy consistent basis that serious sources are taken seriously and treated according to the mandatory policies of the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sean . The main topic of discussion here was not reliability of HRW/AI but it was the question of Relevancy. If you look at the history and talk page , you can see that user Tugrulirmak considers reliability to be the single most important factor of inclusion in an article . As an example , despite many reports of human right abuses why we don't use that reports in the page of United States Armed Forces ? That is because the topic has it's own page and adding a new paragraph to the article of Iranian Azaris based on two reports of HRW/AI is WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I hold the belif the section is relevent in the article for it explains the staus of Azeris in Iran which already has a section devoted to it.To add to this the whole article almost discusses the treatment of Azeris for example in the Pahlavi era and now .I see no reason as to why the opposite view troubles you. Still if you still hold this belief I can create a seperate article on their Ethnic status in Iran involving all the arguments listed here and counter arguments. To do this we would need to reduce the writing in the Ethnic Status sub-section and link the reader to the main page. You or any other editors main contribute to it if they so wish. So the result of this discussion is that we create a seperate page devoted to the topic? Lastly Alborz its not two reports there is the BBC report and the UNHCR report so please do not dismiss them...Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The main determining factor is not the number . As BBC is not an academic SECONDARY source. A new headline should not be add to the article because it is giving wight . A new article should not be written because already there is one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about expanding the current Ethnic Status sub-section not creating another section. Plus giving weight to reliable sources like BBC is a must and if you think BBC is not reliable check the various discussion in the RS notive board which all end in the reliabilty of BBC besides BBC is recognised to be reliable full stop. It is up to us to include its POV. Plase stop saying the same thing over and over it has no value, we have a saying in Turkish "Almis agzina bir ciglet ciyneye ciyneye..." which basicly translates to stop chewing on the same things like "its not academic" "its not scholarly" it is a very very weak argument its geting repetitive atleast find another basis to dicuss upon...Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As I know about Azeri Turkish - that is my ethnic language -, "Almiş ağzina bir Çiglet Çiyneye Çiyneye..." is not a proverb of use in official conversation and it can be considered equivalent of rumination that is not quite polite . Anyway , the reports of the news agencies can be used as reports , but inference , generalization and getting conclusion from them is not possible in Wikipedia . To explain it more , a news agency like BBC can report a car or plane crash in place x , we can use the report in Wiki article about that crash , but by using that report in article "Safety of car travel in place x" , we are giving weight to that side of the whole picture . Academic secondary sources are needed here in conclusion or generalization of the single reports .Several asking for academic sources in generalizations is neither rumination nor chewing of chewing gum , just repeat it because it was not clear for you .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, to ensure nuetrality in the article we must give weight to both sides of the argument no just one side of the picture, like we are doing now. BBC and many other Human Rights sources are used excessivley in many articles and I see no reason as to not using them here.The article says problems and what not but never explains what those problems are, why is that?Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is not equality ! Giving weight to both sides regardless of the true weight of the sides is exactly writing against neutrality . In Wikipedia we are not going to balance two sides to reach equation . These are different concepts ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak didn't say give equal weight and didn't mention anything about creating a false balance, he said give weight. That is what all editors are required to do. There isn't a policy based reason to exclude information from reliable and notable sources that are used throughout Wikipedia like HRW/AI/BBC/UN reports etc from this article. If the section containing that information becomes of sufficient size to be spun off into a subarticle then that can be done per WP:SPINOUT. The arguments can continue here but at some point it becomes tendentious. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a place where on can cherry-pick and dump whatever content one can find to find that suits his/her agenda"

I am not aware if you have noticed but let us look at the section called "Ethnic Status in Iran" and lets alliterate some of the main heading in this section and see weather they themselves are cherry picked:

"Despite sporadic problems, Azeris are an intrinsic community within Iran.[36] Currently, the living conditions of Azeris in Iran closely resemble that of Persians:"

"Azeris in Iran are in high positions of authority with the Azeri Ayatollah Ali Khamenei currently sitting as the Supreme Leader. Azeris in Iran remain quite conservative in comparison to most Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan"

"This population has been traditionally well integrated with the multi-ethnic Iranian state."

"The 15–20 million Azeri Turks living in northern Iran, ethnically identical to Azeris, have embraced Shia Islam and are well integrated into Iranian society"

"Although Iran's fifteen-million Azeri population is well integrated into Iranian society and has shown little desire to secede, Tehran has nonetheless shown extreme concern with prospects of the rise of sentiments calling for union between the two Azerbaijans"

Now what were we saying? Oh yes... cherry picking "sourced" information to suit ones agenda. I, however have no issue with these contributions as they are sourced and reliable and they should be added. I also belive the ethnic status in iran sub-category should be extened; for as we can see here it is too one sided. Therefore as said we include sourced arguments from the other point of view. For wikipedia is striving for nuetrality is it not, who would we be if we were not to include the other side?Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tugrulirmak, the article mentions a few times: "Despite sporadic problems" and "Despite friction" but the despite part is never explained. There is an obvious information gap and we need to balance it. Neftchi (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Such sentences as "Despite sporadic problems" are parts of the sentences used in the original source . Focusing in sporadic problems is sometimes indistinguishable with giving weight.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Alborz, but what Im saying is that the "sporadic problems" are not explained in the article. We cannot write an article like: despite this and despite that, and never explained what the "despite part" really is about. Neftchi (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Turk

In the beginning of the article the term "Persian Azerbaijanis" is introduced yet there is no mentioning of "Azerbaijani Turks" which is also a related term. There are several sources supporting this:

• Helena Bani-Shoraka. "Language Policy and Language Planning: Some Definitions" in Annika Rabo, Bo Utas. The Role of the State in West Asia, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 2005, ISBN 91-86884-13-1, 9789186884130, p. 144
• Stephan Thernstrom, Ann Orlov, Oscar Handlin. Harvard Encyclopedia of American ethnic groups, Harvard University Press, 1981, p. 171, quote: In their homeland the Azerbaijanis, or Azerbaijani Turks as they are sometimes called...

I have also given 4 sources from western professors but editors said "it can be confused with azeris living in Turkey".Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We cant leave out such a widely used term. "Persian Azerbaijani" and "Iranian Azerbaijani" also can be confused with each other. Yet both are written here, I suggest we add "Azerbaijani Turk" and write "not to be confused with Azerbaijanis in Turkey". This approach is always made with a confusing term.Neftchi (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Population of Azeris

According to Prof. Amikam Nachmani of The Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies who is in association with the political science department at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

"Between 33% and 40% of Iran are of Azeri origins; other estimations vary from 8million to 25 million"

This new information should be added.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please read the post I made in the other article that 30 million is a nationalistic figure with RS sources that directly call it a nationalistic figure.
• The person you are quoting is not a Professor but a lecturer (two very different positions).
• On your quote, these are wild estimations, as it mentions 8 million, then 25 million and etc. I already brought sources that claim 30 million is the nationalistic figure, so such sources are actually exceptional claims. Your source shows that it has not done any studies and to put a figure between 8 million to 32 million based on one author, is an exceptional claim. Both 8 million and 32 million seems to be quoting fringe sources as these are not conventional.
• Note Wikipedia policy: "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources" and "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources"[3].
• The BESA center does not seem like an academic insitution and seems very biased towards seeking national interest of a country. So it is not an academic organization
• One can also find for example on the google books: "Kurds, who constitute one-third of the population of Turkey..." [4] and "Mutlu, however, concluded that although the number of Kurds in the west had increased from one-fifth of their total population throughout Turkey in 1965 to one-third in 1990" [5] and "Kurdish people will make up 40 percent of the population in the year 2010...". Just because a google book exists, does not make it reliable for Encyclopaedia. In the numbers you brought, the RS sources mention it is a nationalist figure. Although they do not mention anything about the 8 million, but that seems low, because 8 million today would be the population of Azeri-speaking provinces and adjacent areas that speak Azeri (see my post above about nationalistic figures).
• Given the fact that the author you mentioned has done no analysis, and the sentence (a single sentence and no depth) is not sourced (with any reference), I think such sources need to be examined in light of other sources. Basically, stronger sources like Swietchowski which specialized on the topic of modern Azerbaijanis is better than the source which is not about Iran.
• Plus I brought sources clearly stating that the 30 million is a nationalist figure (33%) (see above). [6] (Azerbaijan since independence; "Estimates from sources close to the Iranian government tend to mention the number 15 million; nationalist Azerbaijani sources talk of close to 30 million, or even more. ...the figure 20 million often mentioned in the literature is likely no exaggeratgion"(Svante Cornell (2010), "Azerbaijan since independence", M.E. Sharpe, 2010). ) (This book is written by the way by anti-Iran biased person, but again more specialized on the topic as it has a half page discussion).
• I also brought actual census work (not imaginary work) that has been done in the same link by US based organizations which should clearly make any off-set figure as an exceptional claim which would mean it requires a detail analysis rather than one sentence. The relative perctage of error would be +/-3.1% and even 5-6% is acceptable within the margin, but 15% or 20% is a statistical impossibility.
• I would read the above post [7] carefully as I have broken down numbers based on provinces. Provincial statistics in Iran: [8]. The population of provinces that speak more than 95% Azerbaijani are East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan. Together they make 5.5 million people. If we add half of West Azerbaijan, this figure becomes 7 million. In Hamadan, the number of Azeri speakers per actual statistics done by the province is 30% (Azerbaijani) -70% (Persian, Laki/Luri/Kurdish) [9]. In Qazvin, there is also an Azerbaijani population but majority is not Azerbaijani (Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Peter McDonald, Meimanat Hosseini-Chavoshi, "The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction", Springer, 2009. pp 100-101: "The first category is 'Central' where the majority of people are Persian speaking ethnic Fars (provinces of Fars, Hamedan, Isfahan, Markazi, Qazvin, Qom, Semnan, Yazd and Tehran..." ). One can confirm by visiting the area themselves or look at the local state statistics: [10]. However, for the sake of the argument, lets exaggrate and put 2 million for Hamadan and Qazvin. That turns into 9 million. Let us exaggerate more, and put 3 million outside of Tehran from nowhereland and these area just mention, and this becomes 12 million. Finally lets exaggerate about Tehran and consider out of the 13.4 million, that 8 million are Azeris. This exaggerated value becomes 20 million based on provincial statistics [11]. However, in reality there is 7 million in Ardabil, Zanjan, East Azerbaijan and half of West Azerbaijan (the other half or more is Kurd): [[12]. The numbers in Hamadan and Qazvin are 30% and 20% respectively, and that of other provinces outside of Tehran is at most 1 million. This gives: 9.2 million (roundedup). Lets round this more up to 10 million. Finally, in Tehran, 98% of the population known Persian and 67% identify as Persian based on comprehensive statitics that has been done already: [13] [14]. Also most Azerbaijanis in Tehran speak Persian as it is the cities language, and have intermingled with Iranians of other areas. Outside of the 67% in Tehran, there are many Iraqi, Afghan refugees and Iranians from other provinces (Kurds, Baluchs, Lurs), but for the sake of the argument we will say 33% which is 4.4 million. So the total (again rounded up several times) is 14.4 million out of 70 million or around 20-21%, which also agrees with the actual statistics provided by survey from a US organization: [15] (has a 3% margin of error with 99% confidence). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Khodabandeh, sorry I was not able to reply in short notice.

• Firstly Professor Amikam is a professor and you can clearly see this here
• Secondly you have brought sources that give different figures and they are incorparated in to the article. You have not however, brought sources that claim the figure given which is 30 million is indeed nationalistic.
• Thirdly you have stated that the quoted 8 million and 30 million may be fring sources although I agree with you with regards to 30 million and also 8 million our agreement is just our point of view. Without sources that state his sources are indeed fringe we can not come to the conclusion they are.
• You have stated that 20 million stated may not be an exageration and I support you on this for CIA fact book gives the figure of 19.5 million and thus is not far of, therefore it would be wise to change the population from 18 million to 20 million or atleast 19.5 million as it is in the Azerbaijani Peoples article.
• Lastly the assumptions made "for the sake of argument" comes from obsecure sources these sources come from Iranian websites that have no as you may put it "no scholarly value" so we can't make any assumptions with those and we should'nt make assumptions any way.

Overall I agree with you that 30 million and 8 million are heavily exagerated I also agree with the fact that azeri population should be raised to 20 million however I would like to aliterate the fact that Professor Amikam is a professor.Thank you, regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you did not read what I wrote carefully. I showed an independent source (not my own words but that of Cornell which is fairly pro-Azerbaijani) which states that 30 million is a nationalistic figure and "20 million" may not be an exaggeration.

The page here states Dr. [16] and I think it more accurate, since it is the universities. Informally, sometimes a lecturer is called a "Professor" but more formally, there are assistant, associare and full professors. It doesn't look like Nachmani is either.

Statoid is not an obscure source [www.statoids.com/uir.html] (it simply lists the population per province without listing background) nor is this census by a US organization [[17]]. The other two sources are not obscure, but simply provincal numbers from Qazvin and Tehran, which can be backed up by secondary sources. Qazvin won't make a 1-2% dent either way and in Tehran, I counted 1/3 which is an upper-estimate. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My friend professors are called professors not out of informality or what not. The website I have provided is a formal strategic reserach institution connected to a university. Mr Amikam is a professor. As I have said I agree with the 20 million you have sources and belive it should be included.

Actually, they are. Furthermore, the page you gave does not say what type of Professor. However, the page I have has the position: "Senior lecturer" [18] and it is a University page. The University page takes precedence as the University knows the title of each faculty better than outside the university pages.

The 20 million is basically the same as 19.4 million, however the author of that source himself has some reliability issues. But I do not mind rounding up 19.4 to 20 million. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, however we can not deny that his analysis bears weight. I also agree that 19.47 million can be rounded to 20 million but how are we to do that with an article edit block? Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Extension of sub-section "Ethnic Status" to include Human Rights Watchdog Reports

I would like someone to comment on weather the Human Rights Reports regarding the status of Azeris in Iran should be added to the article. We have discussed the reliabilty of the sources here However some editors feel that this will give weight to a "fringe argument" which is put forward by Human Rights Sources e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and United National Human Rights Comission Report. We currently at a dead end and so I have requested 3rd party opinion. Thank you, regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it should be brief and then be redirected to ethnic minorities in Iran. Also academic sources are preferred to amnesty reports which focuses on a particular incident and generalizes based on an incident. Overall, the wordings should be proposed first before the unblock.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I value your opinion I came to now it very well due to the pages of discussions we have had. In order to not dilute this message to a 3rd party I shall not respond.However I do agree that we should reach a consensus on the wording if we are to place it in.Thank you, I hope you have a good night.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the reports are going to be used , they should be two sentences and the they should be used as reports . The conclusion making over whole Ethnic Status needs a scholar source and/or other sources than a broadcasting company .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the reports are to be used which we should as they are very reliable as we have already discussed in the noticeboard, they are internationaly recognised organisation.We should quote from the reports.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Title change

The title of this article is very confusing. It suggests that Azerbaijanis in Iran are a different ethnic group. For example Kurdish people are always refered to as Kurds. Not Iraqi Kurds but Kurds in Syria and Kurds in Turkey. So this article title should be changed to "Azerbaijanis in Iran" to give a correct description.Neftchi (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Iraqi Kurds is a very commonly-used term. There is nothing "confusing" about the title here. "Iranian Azeris" generates 400+ hits on Google books, and it's the most commonly-used terminology in academic circles. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Kurds and Iranian Azeris are both ethnic groups that their ethnogenesis occurred in Iran and they are not immigrants in this country . Azeri Iranians are not immigrants of Az.rep in Iran and they should not be called Azeris in Iran or Kurds in Iran :they are landlords and not the guests ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We are going to get no where we need 3rd party opinion please submit one or I shall do so. If you do summit 3rd party please provide link. Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please first look at these pages : Previous request for Kurds in Iran and Previous request for Arabs in Iran , both turned out to be Iranian Kurds and Iranian Arabs . Now what's the difference about the Iranian Azeris ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

@Neftchi. Neither the articles Kurds in Syria nor Kurds in Turkey can be compared to Iranian article because both Republic of Turkey and Syria are new countries that don't have more than hundred years history , so that is very natural that no historical term can be found about them in any document in English or other language , I mean when there was no Turkey then how can we find the term Kurds in Turkey?! But in contrast there are several hundred documents with the usage of the terms "Iranian Kurds " , " Persian Kurds" , "Iranian Azeris " and "Persian Azeris" . The oldest usage of "Persian Kurds " date back to 17 centuries ago in the book of Kārnāmag-ī Ardaxšīr-ī Pābagān , so comparison with Turkey and Syria is misleading .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tugrulirmak, if we want to make progres, we obviously need a 3rd party. Neftchi (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid Alborz you are out of touch. Republic of Turkey has a history of about 100 years yes. However Turkey has a history of 900 years. However if we were to go by the Republic of Turkey in Turkey releated topics then we would have to go by Islamic Republic of Iran in Iran releated topics like this, and as Islamic Republic of iran is 30 or so years old which is a very young state. So that argument doesn't realy hold. If we look at google books we would see a wide use of the words "Azeris in Iran". Besides the term Iranian azeris is very young and limited to certain people. This is because the term Iranian I belive came to be with the Pahlavi dynasty so the term in it self is not so old. Persian Azeris or Persian Kurds may date back to 17th century however what is most important is the people who us them for example if they were used in the court of Qajars it would have less relevence in the article as scholarly sources are encouraged.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of touch?! I don't think so . Republic of Turkey , as a country , was part of an empire with different name (Ottoman), and Anatolia has been never been called Turkey before recent century , so it is logical not to find any document using "Turkish Kurds " or "Turkish Azeris" or alike before the date of establishment of that country . That is not true about Iran , because the usage of the term Iran , dates back to at least 2000 years ago . Using the terms "Iranian Azeris" , "Iranian Kurds" , "Persian Azeris" and "Persian Kurds" is very common in historical and non-historical texts .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please watch WP:NPA as your comment on Alborz violates it. The name Iran is used for the country and "Islamic Republic" is the name of the government. Two different things. Second the name Iran has been used continously and internally since Sassanid times. Europeans used Persia more often as did Arabs, Greeks, and etc., however Iranians used Iran. On the other hand, the name Turkey is very new as the Ottomans/Saljuqs called their land "Rumi" as did their neighbors call them "Rum" (Safavids). In terms of Iran, the international UN name was changed from Persia to Iran in 1935 however, internally Persia was never used and Iran was used consistently in Qajar, Safavid eras and before that as the name of the geography. And no "Turkey" does not have a history of 900 years as the Saljuqds and Ottomans did not use such a term. Also the Ottomans and most of its subject did not consider themselves "Turks" nor is the Ottoman language that was used continued in Turkey, so there is a big break between Ottoman empire and Turkey. Break in terms of language, culture, identity (the name "Turk" being used very differently prior to Ottomans) and the name of the country itself ("Rum or Ottoman" became Turkey). All this is not relavent to this discussion.

What matters he is that google books uses "Iranian Azeris" (402+) times and it is used much more than "Azeris of Iran". So it is not just one or two sources. 400+ sources in google books is sufficient to show the name is valid. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak did not make any NPA violations. So have some good faith and lets not turn this into a hostile discussion. Your main argument is that there are more hits on "google books" with Iranian Azeris. Yet the article is named Iranian Azaris, with notion on the "A". Also there are more then 10 million hits in google for "Azerbaijanis in Iran" and only 5 million for "Iranian Azeris". Most ethnic groups titles are in the form as we suggest: Greeks in Egypt, Turks in Germany, Armenians in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Neftchi (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone out of touch is a personal attack. As per other wikipedia titles, there is also "Arab-Americans" and "Armenian Iranians". As per google, you are wrong. "Iranian Azeris"[19] (41,600) gives more hit than "Azeris in Iran". The article's a should be changed to e, however scholarly criterion is google books not google search engine which has blogs, facebook and many other non-scholarly literature. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Khodabandeh Im only suggesting we have a friendly discussion. If we all start to become hostile we will reach nothing. "Azeri" is a reference, but the correct usage is "Azerbaijani". Even in the lead of this article, the latter version is used. Also the main article of the "Azerbaijani people" is called according to its full name and not "Azeri people". I searched in google accordingly: "Azerbaijanis in Iran" shows 44.400 results and "Iranian Azerbaijanis" only 18.100 results. I also searched in Google Books: "Azerbaijanis in Iran" has 268 results and "Iranian Azerbaijanis" has 247 results. It shows that "Azerbaijanis in Iran" is more used in academic books and normal google search.Neftchi (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any WP:RS academic source saying "Azeri" is wrong and it is not wrong, since 400+ academic books use it. We do not use OR, personal arguments, forum talks and it doesn't matter what Wikipedia uses, as Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Even if take your OR and call it as abbreviation, then "Iranian Azeri" would count towards "Iranian Azerbaijanis", as I have no problem with the latter. Normal Google search is irrelavent and academic sources take precedence. As I mentioned, normal google contains blogs, facebook pages and mostly non-RS sources. Heck I can make 50 pages using a term, so it doesn't count. So one must look at RS sources which is google books. "Iranian Azeri"[20] (Google books: 423), "Iranian Azerbaijani" (Google books: 249), ""Azerbaijanis in Iran" (google books: 270), ""Azeris in Iran" (google books: 215). Now you may state that "Iranian Azeri" is an abbreviation of "Iranian Azerbaijani", so these must count together which combined is much more than your term. If Arab-American is fine, then Iranian-Azeri or Azeri-Iranian is fine. Lets not repeat the same arguments and I suggest the page be renamed to "Iranian Azeris" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis" per the combined and also individual google books WP:RS sources. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Random Google hits are irrelevant in determining proper titles for Wikipedia articles. What counts is the usage of the terms in scholarly work, hence why we use Google Books for measurement. "Iranian Azeris" generates the most hits on Google Books , and that's what the title will be here, according to the relevant naming polices. The "A" in the current title should be an "E", that's just a freudian slip on my part, and I couldn't fix it because of the double redirect. Otherwise, "Iranian AzEris" is correct, and POV-laden terms like "Azeris in Iran" are absolutely unacceptable. You can not be serious, comparing Azeris and Kurds who are natives of Iran, to Turks in Germany who are recent economical migrants/refugees there. Iran has been a geo-political entity/nation-state for a long time, so Iran's case is very different than its young neighbors. Likewise, for America which is melting pot of various ethnic groups, and a much older nation-state than Turkey or Azerbaijan, you don't see a page called "Irish in America" or "Italians in America", they're accurately called Irish American or Italian Americans. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Khodabandeh you said it yourself Azeri is an abbreviation for Azerbaijani. The latter is the name of the ethnic group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in itself, not a collection of references from other encyclopedic sources. That is why I searched for the term Azerbaijani in the variation of "Iranian Azerbaijanis" and "Azerbaijanis in Iran". The latter had more academic sources. Both of you (Khodabandeh and Kurdo) mention the example of Arab-American, Irish American, Italian American, in the order of ethnicity followed by country, based this it should be Azerbaijani-Iranian. I also do not want to make a big fuzz about this, would you agree to this?

As for Kurdo, I ask you have a more friendly and civil approach in the discussion. Do not misinterprate my words or be judgemental about my personality.Neftchi (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure now if "Azeri" is an abbreivation of "Azerbaijani", as I thought at first. That may be a possibility but I am not interested in bringing my own terminology in to it. Actually "Azeri" seems to be used definitely for the ethnic group but "Azerbaijani" is not clear to me, because it means many things: 1) citizen of republic of Azerbaijan 2) Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds etc. from Iranian Azerbaijan. etc. Actually "Azeris" gets more hit than "Azerbaijanis" in google books, and the former is solely used for ethnicity while the latter is used geographically many times. Given the many problems with terminology the best method is to go with the most current scientific terminology which can be glossed from google books. For example, you cannot quote Wikipedia as a reference for articles. It doesn't matter how other Wikipedia articles are written or titled. That is not an argument. I am not interested in any OR, or give or take approaches and so Wikipedia is not reliable for itself. The most common scientific terminology per google books right now is "Iranian Azeris"(more than 400+ academic hits), so that is exactly how should be, since Wikipedia should reflect the most common scientific terminology and the majority of soruces on any controversy. The "a" and "e" are no issues. Azerbaijani Iranians hardly gets any hits. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree in all the examples given, ethnicity was followed after by nationality. This means we change the title from Iranian Azaris to Azari-Iranians or more perferably Azer-Iranain.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Khodabandeh, we can leave out the terminology question as it is indeed a complex question. However you said it yourself Arab-American, Irish-American, Italian-American. In short ethnicity followed by country, thats the common approach in Wikipedia. Also academic searches in google books for "Azerbaijani Iranian" and "Iranian Azerbaijani" is roughly the same: 232 results vs 249 results, respectively. Based on your own arguments, we can change the title to "Azeri Iranian" or "Azerbaijani Iranian". Neftchi (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Neftchi,

But we also have Iranian Armenians and Persian Jews (common terminology). There is also a page: "Azerbaijani Jews" although all the Jews speak a Persian language (Juhuri-Tati) as their native language (which by the way shows that Persian existed as the main language at one time since Jews always adopt the main language of their host country). So this falls under Wikipedia other stuff exists which does not concern this page. For example, I believe right now the article in Lezgistan is extremly biased given all the google books [21][22] (besides undercount of Lezgin population which is mentioned in mainstream sources, the term is used very neutraly in many RS sources), but it does not mean I should bring it in this article. I am just pointing out that users are biased towards their own interests it seems and the best way to resolve issues is use scientific reasoning and let the most significant scholars (google books and only the good scholars) do the talking. If we follow wikipedia guidelines, there is no problem. Experience has shown that compromising guidelines is not only temporary but also it is bad for Wikipedia for users to compromise over guidelines.

So lets focus here on this page. In google books, I am getting only 8 hits for "Azerbaijani Iranians" and 108 for "Azeri Iranian" and 20 for "Azeri Iranians". On the other hand, most of the links for "Azerbaijani Iranian"(232 hits) is talking about "Azerbaijani-Iranian" border and "Azerbaijani-Iranian" frontier. Similarly a good chuck of "Azeri Iranian" (108) is talking about the border, trade and etc. However, "Iranian Azeris" is unambigiously referencing the ethnic group within Iran which is both Azeri and Iranian (not just citizenship but common identity through 500+ years of shared history) at the same time. So this is the most academic title and I notice big names like Touraj Atabaki, Swietochowski [23] and also minor figures such Svante Cornell using it. Based on this, other alternatives should be in the introduction and the page should be "Iranian Azeris". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The terminology of Jews is very complex as its not just about ethnicity but also religion. The terminology for Jewish people is the same. So it couldnt apply in this situation. In your earlier argument you said: "If Arab-American is fine, then Iranian-Azeri or Azeri-Iranian is fine." (15:08, 22 April 2011). You suggested the idea of Azeri-Iranian and I simply agreed. Its basically ethnicity then country. So I dont understand why you have suddenly changed your mind. You say that Azeri Iranian refers in most books to the borders, it was a compromise from "Azeris in Iran". Besides many sources for "Azeri Iranian" also refer it in the context of Azeri-Iranian borders. This is something that cannot be avoided. I do agree that every form of reference should be mentioned in the lead: Iranian Azerbaijani, Persian Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani Turk, etc. However the title should be Azeri Iranian. And you may think Im biased but I should add Im in fact Iranian Azeri born in Baku. I have worked together with other Iranians on Zoroastrian articles. So please dont tell me that Im a biased Pan-Turkist.Neftchi (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets take Arabs. "Iranian Arabs" [24] (400+ hits) and "Arab Iranians" [25] (200+). So as you can see even Iranian Arabs are used more than Arab Iranians. America is different than Iran, because the ethno-genesis of an Azerbaijani population occured within the confines of a larger Iranian geographic area. That can't be said of say Arab Americans who migrated. It is true many sources for "Azeri Iranian" refers to border a lot of times. "Azeri Iranians" is more correct. But we should note all sources for "Iranian Azeris"(note the plural s) are unambigious as far as I can see. I said the other suggestion is okay (but it was not my preference as you can see). However, now I am not against it, because I am now reminded of the many times I had discussions with users wanting something, but I believe the best way is to strictly follow policy. When I started in Wikipedia, sometimes I put compromise over polic but now it is more the other way, specially if the sources are overwhelming. "Azeri-Iranian" is much less hits than "Iranian Azeris". So if 400+ google books hit including Atabaki and Swietchowski use it, then we should use the most common terminology. BTW, I didn't say you were pan-Turk and I think you are all right. However, lets follow policy based on the most common used academic term here. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation, I dont dispute the fact that the Azerbaijani people ethnogeneses happened within the Iranian state. By moving the article to "Azeri Iranian" it doesnt change that fact. Like you said "Azeri Iranian" (ethnicity-country) is the correct way to approach this. For exmple if the term "Southern Azerbaijan" was more used in academic books it still wouldnt be correct to replace "Iranian Azerbaijan". As we know the latter is correct. The same goes for "Azeri Iranian". We can add in the lead as first "commonly refered to as Iranian Azeris". What do you think of this? Neftchi (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We should follow the fact based on Google Books. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 02:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"South Azerbaijan" gets academic hits but under at least four different concepts that need to be counted separately:

• Mode 1: The south of the republic of Azerbaijan (e.g.: a) "Another large minority, the Talysh, live in southern Azerbaijan near the border with Iran"[26] b) "Geomorphology of Southern Azerbaijan and Coastal Responses to Caspian Transgression " [27]. c) "To the south, Azerbaijan shares a border with Iran " (This comes under "South Azerbaijan"). [28]
• Mode 2: SANAM and other groups that have such a name (so it doesn't count) or quoting Elchibey, Mussavatis or similar types/politicians.
• Mode 3: As a criticized and irredentist concept (which makes it invalid for Wikipedia), eg.: "Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as ‘Southern Azer­baijan’, with demands for liberation and, eventually, for ‘re’-unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direc­tion, as in 1945-46 etc. The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union." (Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia’ in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001). (And many more likes these). And occurs many times in quotes 'South Azerbaijan' which shows it is a "so called" name. So this makes it controversial for Wikipedia as researchers have criticized it.
• Mode 4: Finally used by some unaware and also biased researchers. As top counterexample,Encyclopaedia of Islam under Azerbaijan discusses only the historical Azerbaijan and not the country of Azerbaijan. It is the primary academic tool.
• And in case you might not be aware, there are actually maps and classical sources before the 20th century that show all of the current republic of Azerbaijan as Armenia, but one does not use such source as it is minority. It is the same here, the issue of controversial name which gets less hit than "Iranian Azerbaijan". So if we only count the last one, it is much less than "Persian Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan". And these last two are unambigious and get more hits. "Iranian Azerbaijan" (google books hit 5330) and "Persian Azerbaijan" (google books 2730). Note that even Persian Azerbaijan is more than the combined "South" and "Southern" Azerbaijan which has at least 4 modes I described with mode 2 and 4 being controversial, mode 3 showing the controversy and mode 1 just talking about the south of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

All this falls uner Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and it is not necessary for the discussion. So the issue of academic sources dictate we go with "Iranian Azeris" as the most common name, And of course we can have "Azeri Iranians", "Azeris in Iran", etc, in the introduction. Simply, wikipedia dictates to use the most common academic name, and "Azeri Iranians" "Iranian Azeris" gets the most hit, and unless there are explicit RS sources criticizing this naming (and I mean real RS sources like Professors in high academic institutions), then there is no point really continuing. We can't add our own OR to this, and I believe Iranian Azeri is correct not only for the reasons I outlined above, but also because of the fact that Azeris have been part of Iran since the beginning and it is not like Azeris in Russia or Germany. Anyhow, you may disagree but the most common academic sources is what counts. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Khodabandeh I didnt dispute the terminology for Iranian Azerbaijan as a region. I only meant "Southern Azerbaijan" as an example. But thanks for your explanation, however (offtopic) I believe Pishevari was not a seperatist but rather a socialist - very popular ideology during that era. Anyway you just wrote: "Simply, wikipedia dictates to use the most common academic name, and "Azeri Iranians" gets the most hit." - this is confusing because you contradict yourself. So you do want to go for "Azeri Iranian" or not? Here you say yes. Anyway can you show me where "Wikipedia dictates to use the most common academic name." And perhaps we need to bring a 3rd party opinion. Maybe it could give us fresh ideas and new suggestions? Neftchi (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is a typo on my part and it should be "Iranian Azeris". Please note my previous sentence. The problem with the alternative : "Azeri-Iranians" is the number of results is low relative to Iranian Azeris. As per the name you brought for Iranian Azerbaijan, I had to explain it after you mentioned it. And I showed it is in minority usage, ambigious and also controversial (which is important as I have RS sources). Wikipedia naming convention on article titles has: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources and again: "Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.". I think Carter V. Findley, Swietchowski and Atabaki are high ranking professors who use the term. I don't mind a 3rd party on the naming convention as I have already brought my case that we should use the most common term used in academia, and in this case, both google books and google scholars state the same thing. I think it is a waste of time , but if you want a 3rd party for the naming dispute, that is fine.

On Pishevari being a separatist or not, the problem is Pishevari was not really in control. Swietchowski which is fairly pro-Azerbaijan republic source with lots of biases believes he was. I can now say 100% his organization was created for separatist reasons (see these cold war archives): [29]. Note these cold war archives were released fairly recently. Later on Pishevari had his fight with Mir Ja'afar Bagherov and was likely assassinated. I do not think Pishevari himselif was a separatist but the organization's control was in the hand of USSR and Mir Ja'far Bagherov, and Pishevari had little control. He was actually assassinated by the Soviets (through a car accidents) but in reality, he was more a figure head than the actual runner of the show.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oke so lets bring in a 3rd party's opinion, we can both quickly present our arguments and than we can make the adjustments accordingly. Do you know an objective 3rd party or should I bring somebody in?

As for Pishevari, I agree with you and if you have any objective sources we could use them in Pishevari's article. But we shouldnt discuss that here.Neftchi (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My arguments are aleady given above. It is the most cited name in google books and google scholars, used by well known Professors such as Atabaki, Findely, Swietchowski. As per third party, I believe you should ask for a formal request on the title. On Pishevari, I agree, he has his own article and we can't focus on one man on this article. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Golbez, since he has some experience with countries from the region. See here for my request. Neftchi (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've spent maybe 20 seconds looking at this, and my initial thought is, "Iranian Aze/aris" or "Iranian Aze/arbaijanis" seems better. My concern is, there are two Azerbaijans - the independent republic, and the ethnic quarter of Iran. One is a political unit, potentially made up of multiple ethnicities, while the other is a purely ethnic descriptor. "Azerbaijanis in Iran" is ambiguous - it could mean Azeri nationals who are in Iran, ethnic Azeris from Azerbaijan living in Iran, or ethnic Azeris born and raised in Iran. The article appears to be focusing on the last of those options. Since it is specifically Azeris of Iranian citizenship, descent, etc., and since Azerbaijani is the ambigous term here, it seems to me that the Iranian qualifier should come first. Finally, "X in Y" just seems to me to portray a temporary state of being - there are many Indians in the UAE, but you wouldn't consider most of them Indian-Emiratis. We are working with a specific subset - people who are from the ethnic Azeri region of Iran. They are not Azeris in Iran. They are Azeris from Iran. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the major problem with Wikipedia is that too many users (I do not mean Neftchi who is actually a fair user and tries to cool down rhetorics from hotheads but the general atmosphere in Wikipedia) ignore guidelines. If a term is used the most in academia, then that should be case in Wikipedia. One can make an issue out of any name (raise points about it), but if major academics use it and majority of academic books use it, based on the Wikipedia policies I outlined above, it should be the name. One can have long conversations on whats good, bad and evil but if we stick to wikipedia policy, almost all problems will solved despite the guidelines not always being towards the inclinations of users (many times myself included). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I support User:Golbez's suggestion, and he is an independent 3rd party perspective. I also believe that we should use the most common terminology, used in academic circles. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Golbez. Your insight is appreciated. Khodabandeh would you agree to change the title to "Iranian Azerbaijanis"? If so then its settled. I also believe the lead should mention all variations of the name. Thus the lead should be:

Iranian Azerbaijanis or Azerbaijani Iranians, Persian Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijani Turks are the native Azerbaijani population of Iran...

This should prevent any edit wars in the future. Neftchi (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Per google books and Gobelz above, I supported Iranian Azeris as it has the most hits in google books and scholars. Iranian Azerbaijanis I do not mind, but it is ambigious as Azerbaijani is used as a geography more and Azeri is used more as ethnicity. Perhaps Gobelz and Kurd0o777 can comment on this before we proceed in choosing one of these two. However, scientific ciation shows the former is used more. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The main article of Azerbaijanis is called "Azerbaijani" people. Azerbaijani is the name of the ethnic group. Azeri is an abbreivation for Azerbaijani. If we use Azeri for one page and Azerbaijani for another it will confuse readers, thinking that they are separate ethnic groups. It is even confusing some Wikipedians.Neftchi (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I've always thought as "Azeri" as a legitimate shorthand for "Azerbaijani", just as "Brit" is short for "Briton" and "Bajan" is short for "Barbadian". (I say "legitimate" as opposed to "colloquial", like "Canuck" or "Yank" would be) "Azerbaijani" appears to me the only viable option for an article. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Azerbaijani in Iran is ambigious in the sense that it could mean a Kurd, Azeri, Armenian and Assyrian.. from Azerbaijan. However, since Golbez likes "Iranian Azerbaijani", then that is fine with me although I preferred following the most cited term in WP:RS. Thanks to both of you for being civil and thanks to Neftchi for getting a 3rd party. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's a source stating that "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" are not synonyms, I'd like to see it, but everything I've seen and heard says that they are synonyms. (Also, it doesn't help that the region in Iran is also named Azarbaijan) --Golbez (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well both the the terms "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" were used since the 20th century, and most authors do not differentiate betwee the two. The term is actually Persian with the affix "i" (Persian borrowing into Turkish" denoting association. Most sources do not make a difference, but some do, here are some examples:

• see the comments in the footnotes here:

[30] quote: "Throughout, "Azeri" will refer to those who are ethnically Azeri, such as an " Azeri women" or an "Azeri-populated village." "Azerbaijani" will refer to organizations connected with the Republic of Azerbaijan,"

• Svante E. Cornell, "Azeraijan Since Independence", M.E. Sharpe, 2010. "The term "Azeri", used mostly by foreigners has come to possess a narrower, ethnically based meaning whereas the term "Azerbaijani" is understood to refer to residents within the territory of Azerbaijan, embracing the country's entire population" (You can google book this portion. Note Cornell is biased source in my opinion but what he says seems accurate here). I am good with both suggestions, but technically speaking, I prefer "Iranian Azeris" because it is used in more scientific publication. Azeri is 100% ethnic term but Azerbaijani may or may not be an ethnic term as described in these sources. For example Iranian Azerbaijani could potentially refer to a Kurd from Azerbaijan.. r for example someone from 1000 years ago might have the place name "Azerbaijani" as part of their title but not even be an ethnic Azeri-Turkish speaker (e.g. Bahmanyar). On the sidenote, there is a movement to simply get rid off the word "Azeri" and use "Tork" (which is prevalent in Iran) instead. So I'll let Golbez decide between these two terms, and whatever he decides, is good for me. That is I do not mind "Azerbaijani" but I prefer Azeri. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note:I see you guys are handling this pretty well and me joining in is meaningless however I just wanted to thanks Golbez for his 3rd party opinion in this disputed matter and all the editors also. However one problem still remains and I kindly ask of Golbez to state a 3rd paty opinion about the use of Human Rights sources in the designated area of this talk page. Thank you in advance.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Massacares

I think we need to add some information on the Ottoman massacares of the inhabitants of Tabriz based on the available sources. As an example: David Ayalon, Moshe Sharon , "Studies in Islamic history and civilization: in honour of Professor David Ayalon", Brill 1986. pp 416: "A deadly earthquake in the year 1721 destroyed large part of the city and killed eighty thousands of its inhabitants. Four years later the Ottoman Turks captured Tabriz and massacred two hundred thousand of its people" Note David Ayalon is a neutral historian. [31]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see no references to the "Massacre of Azeris in Tabriz" in the book can you provide me a link to it. Now I think with the 200,000 you are refering to the " In 1780, a devastating earthquake near the city killed over 200,000 which is regarded as 25th most deadly disaster of all times" here is the link to the wiki article and here is the sourcehere is the sourceTugrulirmak (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also estimates of this earthquake go as far as 250,000 Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source: [32]. Note it states: "the Ottoman Turks captured Tabriz and massacred two hundred thousand of its people". The earthquake is a separate issue. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but the link you gave me directs me to a google books page which can not be viewed. Also the high lightened parts are seperated from each other, if the book featured what you wrote than they would not be seperated. Please give me a link that I can actualy read untill then I belive there is a mix up between the casulties sustained in the earthquake and the coming of the ottmans.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its on page 416 and you should be able to read it. The highlights have to do with search terms and not the book. I have uploaded it here:

Here I searched for Tabriz: [33]. But if you can't read it or don't believe it, there two other options: 1) purchase it from a bookstore 2) get it from a library. That is, it is not my problem if you cannot access the page as it is a problem with your computer. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Here is the link for the pic again that I have copied from the google books: [34] (but if all this is not sufficient, then it is your responsibility to buy or borrow the book from a library), since the source is RS and valid. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to purchase the book as my current financial state doesn't allow me to purchase every book people are not bothered to put a proper link to. Google books says this page can not be previwed due to the fact the book can only be accessed very limitedly. I hold the belife the 200,000 given in this case is refering to the earthquake. This is because you have only provided me with 1 source if it is 200,000 as you say there would be more sources (please provide if there are) I also need to know weather these were the inhabitants or the Persian army we need to look aty the context not just one page of the book. Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I brought the link, and you can get inter-library loan. Your belief is fine, but it is not backed up by RS sources (websites don't make RS). I brought a major Professor and he describes both the earthquake and the massacre. They are independent events. And its not talking about the army, it clearly states that: "massacred two hundred thousand of its people". Its reliable source: [35]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an exeptional claim and it should be supported by more sources just like | put forward 4 to support my argument you should do the same. But let us look at the sources referenced by this professor to come to such a conclusion.

• Muhammad Ali Hazin was an Iranian poet and scholar, born into an eminent family in Esfahan. His ancestors were scholars and landowners from Gilān (see Lāhijān). In 1734 he emigrated to India where he contributed to the Persianization of the ruling élites. Now what does this tell about him? He was known to Persianize the ruling elites of India and had connections to the safavid dynasty. This means that he is not a reliable source as he would have been a side in the ongoing conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire. He is also known to actively persinize the people of India thus adding to the fact he is not a nuetral source. In conclusion he is a biast primary source.

• The second source is John Malcomb who was borne after the Ottoman take over. He was a plenipotentiary for the British East India Company, he came into conflict with Sir Harford Jones, the British Ambassador to Persia, which resulted in a number of minor disputes about precedence in the Persian court and the giving and receiving of gifts.Upon his return to Bombay he was censured by the government for having spent too much on gifts for the members of the Persian court. Now what does this tell us about this source. He was well aquanted with the Persian court and sent gifts and was ambassador so wished a well and good atmosphere. This means he is also has a bias as he would not wish for anything to disturb his dealings; he had vested interest to promote the enemy, the Ottomans as inhuman which appealed to the Persian court (which sometimes they were like anybody). So he too has a vested interest therefore is not nuetral.

• Now even if we were to take the numbers proposed the death toll would mount up to 400,000 which means there are about 500,000 people living in tabriz at the time.But how can this be when the current size after the urbanisation or Iranian society is, 1.4 million. Bear in mind the population of Iran in the 1700s was about 5 million. The 400,000 thousand proposed is 10% of that figure and todays Tabriz the population constitutes to about 1.5% of the total population of Iran. My friend not even the numbers add up. To propose 400,000+ people were in Tabriz in 1700s before urbanisation or Iranian society which occured in mid 20th century is proposterus and needs more than one professor and some biast references to support.

• This also, if real, which I have doubts over as explained, belongs in the article Tabriz due to the fact that it is the population of Tabriz that is allegedly affected not Azeris because the sources does not state Azeris especially were targeted.

Thank you. Please do comment on each of the points I made so I may reply back and so the foundations of this discussion will remains stable. Have a good night, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your points fall under WP:Forum and WP:OR. It is your own research which is not backedup by other RS sources. For example you have to show that those primary sources are lying. Fact is David Ayalon (qualified RS source) has used these sources and made his own obseravtion based on this. This is not an exceptional claim as you have no source denying such a massacae took place (sources directly denying it). And the fact these primary sources confirm the massacare means there are now three sources (one secondary, two primary). Thus there is nothing to dispute the issue. And by the 18th century, the population of Tabriz would be Azeri-speaking. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How can there be a source denying something that hasn't taken place, if hasn't taken place people would feel no need to write about it. This does not fall under WP:Forum and nor is it WP:OR I am explaining why the source is unreliable I can not see any way in which you can interpret my action as a forum or original research. In any case the source it self is just one source, the claim is extraordinary. Unless you can provide me other modern sources to support this We can not add the source.Besides if such an action did take place its destination should come under the Tabriz article because the source is talking about Tabriz and not Azeris it is irrelevant to the article.Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is your WP:OR because you need to show sources denying this claim explictly from other Professor. You denying it based on your own research is WP:OR goes into a forum, not wikipedia. So if one guy in the 17th century loved Iran, it does not mean he is lying (your OR). Neither does it mean Malcomb is lying because he was British or whatever. Such an approach is WP:OR. To summarize: Its your word against a Full Professor David Ayalon[36]. The only way to deny it is to bring another Full Professor or scholar who states his claim is wrong, then both views can be brought. If you bring 5 or so Professors or scholars who reject Ayalon's claim, then Ayalon is a minority and an exceptional claim. Also I have other modern sources (mainly in Persian) that support this, but David Ayalon is sufficient. He has also mentioned two primary sources at least. I agree that it should come under Tabriz as well but it doesn't mean it should not come here. I am sure 200,000 is more important than Chehregani. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly you are giving undue weight to an idea. The claim features in the professors book in only but a sentence. You can not give me other sources to back this up. And the one you do give me is a mear sentence you give me a full book written on the subject by one professor we can add that in without the need for other professors. But we can not add a claim based on one sentence in one book. That would be giving undue weight WP:Weight to a subject due to the fact, as said earlier there is only 1 sentence written about it. Also there is no scholaryly consensus you are giving me one source only and that one source isn't even about the "massacre". Now please tell me how this abides to wikipedia policy. Please provide me secondary western sources and when we have more then one sentence from one professor we may use primary sources. Untill then it will be givng undue weight to a fringe idea. My argument about cultural oppression is supported by 3 full reports and 1 BBC study however this, yet again is one sentence in one book that isn't even to do with the "massacre". Now provide me something like the "Shame full act" which is a full book on the armenian genocide (even though I don't belive in it) then we can include it on the Tabriz article. User:Tugrulirmak|Tugrulirmak]] (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• All of what you said does not apply, as undo weight mean sthat you need have material against it, which you do not. The article is about Tabriz: ""The Fate of the Jewish Community of Tabriz,"( so fairly specialized about Tabriz) and cited by other scholars [37].
• It is written by A. Netzer [38] in a book in honor of David Ayalon.
• Fringe ideas do not come from major Professors unless you can prove it by other major Professors that it is fringe (outside of normal scholarly scope). The 3 or four news website reports (even 100 of them) you brought had other website/books to counter it. And websites are not the same weight as one academic book written by a well know Professor and scholar. You can talk about your sources up there.
• There is no violationWP:weight, and as I said, David Ayalon is RS and has used primary sources. You have nothing against these sources which cite primary chornicles. Fringe, and weight does not apply to articles that are cited by other academic scholars.
• I am not going to continue this discussion as it is going in circles, if you believe the source is fringe, then you can seek 3rd opinion on it on the wikipedia fringe board. Please let me know when you do. A full professor citing primary material is not fringe(specially if there is no scholarly source of equal rank against it and criticizing it), and also, one is allowed to cite primary materials without intrepreting them (specially in light of secondary sources which the full professor provides).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You said it yourself the article is called "The fate of Jewish Community in Tabriz" this means it is about the Jewish people of Tabriz. It is not about Azeris and is not specialised in that respects. Therefore adding one sentence as a whole sub-section from a book wich discusses judaism in Tabriz in an article releated to Azeris has nothing to do with the article, it is irrelevent. Thats like saying saturn is a gasy planet in a mars article. I will be asking 3rd party opinion and boy are we doing that alot.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again original research. It states 200,000 of the population of Tabriz were massacared not 200,000 Jews of Tabriz were massacared. Given Tabriz is the center of Iranian Azeris in Iran in the last 400 years or so, it is related. Also this was not the only Ottoman massacare in Tariz, there were some in the 16th and 17th century, as well the Ottoman invasion in early WWI which was resisted by Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We are going by assumption here, provide me the data for the population of Tabriz and its Demography in 1723 then we can say it was a capital of Azeris. But at the moment you are taking one sentence from one book which is concerned with Jews of Tabriz and trying to form a whole section on well thats just giving undue weight to a topic which doesn't concern an article releated to Azeris in Iran, its irrelevent. Besides you need more sources or atleast more than one sentence from a book to even big writing about it.Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tabriz was turcophone Iranian Azeri by the 18th century. The article is specialized towards Tabriz as well and it is clear: "A deadly earthquake in the year 1721 destroyed large part of the city and killed eighty thousands of its inhabitants. Four years later the Ottoman Turks captured Tabriz and massacred two hundred thousand of its people" . That Tabriz was an Iranian Azeri speaking by the 18th century is well known fact however if you need source, I have many on Turkicization of Azerbaijan. Iranica article "Old Azari language" or D.Planhol, "Iran: Geography" on Iranica or Peter Golden. Primary sources such as Evliya Chelebi also discuss the population characteristic of Tabriz which they say was overwhelmingly Turcophone except a small class who spoke Persian. As I said, I am not going to go around circles, and slowly the article should have the several Ottoman massacares commited against native inhabitants of Azerbaijan as well as their resistance to Ottoman and Russian rule. This --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say this again. You can write a section about an exeptional claim by giving one source and that one source being one line and that one line being in a chapter that is adressing Jewish Cumminities in Tabriz. You need to provide more sources or atleast more then one line or writing. This also belongs in Tabriz article if and when you have enoough sources not here. This article concerns Azeris not Tabriz. Please have more than 1 line of writing and more then one source to support this extraordinary argument. In any case you or I can call for a nuetral non-bias this includes not being iranian, azari, turk or what ever. We need a 3rd party completely devoid of such things that may lead to a predetermined stance. You may call for one or I can, but we do need a 3rd party.Tugrulirmak (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot create a seperate headline about "Ottman Massacares", based on just 1 source. And most important of all, its not even about ethnic Azerbajianis who were massacred. "In 1830, the Jews of Tabriz were massacred" - it says so in the Persian Jews article. And the chapter is about "Jewish Cumminities in Tabriz". So I think there is just miscommunication here.Neftchi (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cite itself as a source.. Yes the Jews of Tabriz were also massacared, as were the Armenians and even the Italian ambassador. But so were the Muslims and it is not based on one source. There are two primary sources describing it. Armenian sources that have described this general massacare mention the 200,000 came from both Muslim and non-Muslim population. There are also many Persian sources on this matter. A Full Professor from university is not undo weight, specially he has cited two chronicles. We can state based on these two chronicles and this Professor, about 200,000 people were massacared. It is a source with direct attribution. Here is also an another chronicle from the same era: Abraham Erewans'I'S (Abahram of Erevan), "History of Wars (1721-1738", tr. by George A. Bournoutian, Mazda Pub (May 1999). pg 36: "All the citizens, including women and children, were taken captive and their possessions were looted. After that they ceased the killing and the city. After that they ceased the killing and the city was pacified" .. So in total there are three primary sources, two secondary sources (one in English by Netzer, and one in Persian by Dr. Firuz Mansouri). Unless there are sources denying this claim or challenging this claim, then there is no policy on not citing it with attribution as 2 secondary and 3 primary sources are sufficient on this wide level massacared occured. However, I have not yet had time to finish the research and once it is done, it can easily be over 10 sources (currently just 5 with 3 primary and 2 secondary). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give links to secondary sources so we may have a look at them. I also agree with Neftchi that we can not create a whole new section on one sentence claim from one source, it would be giving undue weight. Secondly the fact that the book is talking about Jews of Tabriz means that those massacred were Jews, so I do think there is miscommunication here. Overall can you please provide us secondary, western sources that agree with the notion that all of Tabriz's population was massacred. If it is as you say which is all this belongs to Tabriz article because we are talking about all ethnicities in Tabriz not Azeris and involvment within this article would credit the fact that only Azeris were massacred, it would me miss guiding. This is ofcourse if it is the case which I am very edgy about due to the possiblity of a misconception.Thank you.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)