Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 4

—Khoikhoi 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

collage of different iranian peoples

I'd like to point out some major problems with [1]. The second picture from the left is an azeri woman[2] who are Turkic, not Iranic. Plus Catherine Bell's ancestry is half Scottish. I dont mean to play spoilsport, but these are glaring errors on an image that is supposed to represent Iranian peoples. -Kilhan 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cathrine Belle is nevertheless an Iranian, and frankly a very good example of the new-age, mixed Iranians. Also, Azeris are defined as Iranian-Turkic people, by all sources that I know of, so certainly, they are a valuable peice to the Iranian peoples as a whole. They have been Iranian before even the country of Turkey was formed. Also, for example is a Kurdish-Turk to be discriminate against and should not be called a Turk? see all ethnicities/picture of Iranian-Azeris hereThanksZmmz 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Azeris in this article is still being discussed, so unless we include them, we shouldn't have a picture of an Azeri woman. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can't include the Azeris. It seems that we are veering away from the purposes of this article. In fact, after having given a rendition of what the Iranian peoples are, how is it possible to actually trace the Azeris to an Iranic tribe, that is all of them in a manner similar to that of the Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns who all speak Iranian languages? It's all heresay and without the language link any inclusion of other groups is not tenable. Furthermore, culture and history would include a great many people (including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, etc.) and render this article pointless, which it is not. It serves a purpose and explains the movements of the various Iranian peoples as a whole and their modern counterparts. By including other groups to appease one group, in this case the Persians, we open a pandora's box and the inclusion of the Azeris will simply turn this article into a Persian/Iran (the country) page rather than an academic view of the Iranian peoples. Giving them some peripheral mention is one thing, but counting them as an Iranian people is just not logical. Tombseye 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, nor you, nor I can decide which ethnicity belongs where. It just is, and we include that it in the info/articles here; unless, there are some new discoveries for example. Azeris are Iranian people, going back as far as the ethnic Iranian-Turkin dynasty of Safavids centuries ago. Ask any Azeri about their ethnicity, and they`ll reply, Azeri/Irany. It is beyond the scope of regular editors to re-define ethnicities[3] .ThanksZmmz 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my whim as you seem to believe, but that of the majority of academic departments which classify Iranian or Iranic peoples based first and foremost upon their language. Are you not reading the article which clearly states that 'ethnicity' is just one factor? This article is about ONE aspect, while Iranian Turks or Turko-Iranian another factor. Actually, some Azeris, such as those from the country, don't consider themselves 'Iranian' and that's not relevant to the discussion. What's more this article, again if you read it, explains who the ancient tribes were and how some connect to the present peoples as well. Where are the Azeris to fit in here? What shall we put in? That Persians consider them Iranian and thus they must be included? That they aren't actually Turks? You're pushing a POV that is not academic here just as some of the Kurdish editors wanted the classification to be more wide in scope. Everyone's actually coming here with their national perspective and then claiming that this article must conform to their wishes. The Iranian peoples article is not just the Persians. What's more, the article at Bartleby only says that the Azeris are Persian in culture, which is covered in the Turko-Iranian page and is not denied on this page either. Sharing a culture does not make them Iranian or Iranic because they do not speak an Iranian language and cannot be universally traced to ancient Iranian tribes (I already know that most of the Persians seem to want them included as 'Medes' or Scythians) because that's debateable as there is evidence also linking them to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians. So in conclusion, this is not my arbitrary decision, as I am only trying to render this article to conform to consistency (just as the Turkic, Germanic, Slavic articles do) and adhere towards common academic views. Tombseye 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not initiate another edit war here; it is not my comments, rather I provided you with both Columbia Encyclopedia and [4], Encyclopedia BritannicaAzerbaijan in northwestern Iran. Germanic people are irrelevant here, and these disputes are frankly too frivolous, too often. Excuse me, why is there an argument here? Zmmz 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read those articles and they Azeris are a Turkic people. What's your point? Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another pic[5].Zmmz 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are three more pictures[6][7][8]Zmmz 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The last picture seems fine. Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people

It is very upsetting for me as an Iranian that one of the greatest ethnic groups of Iran can not be included but I am afraid, I have to agree with khoikhoi and tombseye. Yes being Iranian/Iranic is much more than just linguistic but language is the most important link. If we add them then it would be fair for Turkish editors to consider adding Kurdish people of turkey to the Turkic people article. After all, I am sure they have adapted some Turkish culture after being part of a Turkish country for so long and the only clear difference that they have with the Turks is their non-Turkic language. same goes for the Iraqi kurds. We can not have double standards. Azeri people are very much part of Iran and Iranian in culture but they do not speak and Iranian language and this is very important. Remember that this article is not about Iran or who did what, who was most loyal, or who has been there the longest; rather it is about an ethnic and linguistic group of people. Almost half of the members of this group don’t even live in Iran. Talking about Azeri people and other Turkish speaking Iranians in a separate section is a great idea but we can not add them to the list.

Sorry for the long message!Gol 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere opinion is that it is better to delete the article, and spread its contents over other articles such as Iranian languages etc., rather than leave it like this and not include the Azeris which are one of the most important ethnic groups of Greater Iran. I am not even an Azeri myself, but I do not know of a single Azeri person - and I know many - who wouldn't identify him/herself first and foremost as Iranian. What's the problem with stating that they are linguistically Turkic, but in most other ways Iranian? Besides, virtually all Azeris of Iran also speak Persian, as do all Iranians for that matter. The problem is the wrong definition on this page. Shervink 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

But you're the one who recently changed the definition in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the Iranian peoples. See User:Grandmaster's comment here. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're merging Iranian citizens with an academic category is the problem. Note that the Hazara, who have a great deal of Mongol ancestry are considered an Iranian people due to their language and culture and yet could be argued as a Turkic-Mongol group who just happen to speak an Iranian language. This article can't be merged into the Iranian languages article BECAUSE that article is specifically about the languages and the various evidentiary traits that classify them as Iranian languages. That article actually needs more work in order to compare grammatical forms, idioms, vocabulary etc., but that's where that article's emphasis is. This article is about the tribes and languages and cultures and how they are linked in various ways. Where else is this to be rendered? Where else can you get a picture of how this group of people came to be and how these languages and peoples were formed? It serves a purpose and there is plenty of room in the Turko-Iranian and Iranian Turkish articles to discuss how Iranian the Azeris are, at least according to some people. This article is not about that aspect. Why the need to keep the Kurds in (when some Kurdish editors felt that it was too orthodox to include them as an Iranian people) and then also incorporate the Azeris who don't even speak an Iranian language? Now at this rate, nationalism has come up with the Pashtun page where some people insist that the Pashtuns are not an Iranic people and that Pashto is not traced to Middle Iranian, but is actually a separate branch of the old Indo-Iranian group. Original research pure and simple that is not substantiated. This case is the same. I'm not saying the Azeris have a great many commonalities with Persians, Kurds, etc., but they are a Turkic people according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Bartley, and all the other sources that I've been given as evidence with the only mention being that they are Persian in culture. At this point, I can only conclude that this has more to do with nationalism than a rational choice to render an encyclopedic article about the Iranian peoples. Note in the article the various discussions of the various groups. The Croatians have a theory that they are not Slavs, but descendents of the Sarmatians so shall we add them? There is a place to discuss other views and then there is a place to explain the most commonly accepted academic perspectives on various peoples. Without that, we have chaos and I won't be able to argue that the Kurds cannot be included as a Turkic people since we will have lost any semblance of consistency. Tombseye 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I think your previous post actually clarifies my point of view to a large extent. I have been saying all along that Iranian languages and Iranian peoples need two articles, not one, because Iranian peoples have a broader meaning than just language. You say the same in the previous post. Considering that as given, there is no reason to exclude Azeris from this article based on linguistic issues, since, as you pointed out, that is not the main concern here. Note also that, as you said yourself, Azeris are Persian in culture, at least in most respects. It goes without saying that the proper definition of this article would give equal weight to language and culture. There is nothing wrong with associating Azeris with Turkic and Iranian/Iranic people simultaneously. In fact, that would be more accurate, simply because they are affiliated with both. Shervink 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think that problem can be addressed at the Turko-Iranian page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding Turko-Iranian culture might be in order as well on both the Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples page to help clarify that these groups are often quite fluid. My main point here is that on this page we are talking about the Iranian peoples of the past who segue into the present and that makes the direct inclusion of the Azeris higly problematic. Tombseye 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is problematic about the inclusion of Azeris. Azeris are very commonly considered Iranian, and they rarely state otherwise themselves. It is the exclusion of Azeris which needs clarification and is problematic, not their inclusion. Shervink 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think you're taking a Persian perspective rather than an academic one, but here's a compromise then. We can create a sub-section under ethnic groups regarding related and overlapping groups and include a discussion of the Azeris and not list them as an Iranian people as that is just viable within the parameters of this article. In fact it's already kind of started as I've been added information on the subject and the interaction between Persians and Azeris etc. Tombseye 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think it is correct to include Azeris with Iranian people. I have nothing but respect for Iranian and Persian people, they are our brothers and sisters, but the ethnicity is based on the language, and Azeris are Turkic speakers. They belong to Turkic people, despite their close historical and cultural ties with Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"ethnicity is based on the language"? Since when? Also I don't think Azeris have spoken Turkic languages from the begining. Although I doubt there is any historical evidence to support/oppose this -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Azeris belong to the same group as Yakuts and Gagauz, despite Azeris being culturally closer to Persians and not having much in common with many Turkic people. That is because all those people speak Turkic languages. So Azeris don’t belong to Iranian people, insisting on the opposite would not be an academic approach. On the other hand, there are close cultural ties between Azeris and Persian people, but this should be addressed a different way, not by inclusion of Azeris with Iranian people. Maybe a special section should be created for that in the article. Grandmaster 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly they [Azeris] belong to both Iranians and Turks, i.e., they are Iranians-Turks,; not each one individually. Much like a child born to parent from two different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

Hmm in a way. They may be called Turk because of their language, but historically speaking Azeris have been as Iranian as much as any other tribe in Iran -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why they should be included within both groups, with a notice on each page to point out the relation to the other group. Shervink 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Genetics

Why is this section even here? Does it say anything in particular about the Iranian peoples, or rather does it simply concerntrate on the Kurds? In case anyone is curious, there is already another biased article regarding the "genetic origins" of the Kurds. I find it curious that these speculative racialist theories are included here as fact, when they are simply the POV of a group of scientists. At any rate, I ask again - does this information belong here considering that it cannot be used to generalize millions upon millions of people spread across the region? I'd really like to know. SouthernComfort 07:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'racialist' at all. National Geographic now regularly employs genetic and genealogical tests to prove or disprove population movements, such as with the Phoenicians and the Mongols. It also gives us insights into cultural assimilation and is actually becoming quite common in academia. How is it biased if we find genetic markers that show Kurdish links to people in the Caucasus? They are still an Iranic people and also have common genes with Iranic people in addition so what's the problem? These tests, once a wider sample has taken place, will give us more insights. The Kurds will remain an Iranic people since they do possess the main criteria, an Iranian language as do the Ossetians and Hazara etc. the problem is that people think of these tests as a litmus test for race when they should be looking at the common genetic markers that show links between various peoples and to what degree. The question of cultural assimilation shows that the Azeris, who are bitter adversaries of the Armenians, are actually closely related to them. I'm more in favor of adding information than deleting it at any rate. If you have information or think the findings are controversial and can word it well, then add what you can. Tombseye 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about the Iranian peoples in general and using a genetic study that focuses only on one group to make generalizations about the whole is POV. If you have genetic studies that compare similarities/differences between Iranian/Iranic populations, that's one thing. But as it is the section is rather speculative and this is unnecessary. As such, I suggest including only the first study since it does mention specific populations (according to the article: "Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks") - I haven't read the whole article, but it seems, however, that they only sampled populations from Iran. More details from that article could be incorporated here, i.e. how many were sampled, what regions were they from, etc. The second source appears to focus only on Kurds from Iraq (correct me I'm wrong). Again, there is already another article with this same exact information. My suggestion is to only include sources which collectively compare Iranian populations, rather than focus on a single group. SouthernComfort 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid argument. Actually, I didn't particularly want the Kurdish study myself, but then there are a lot of things that I don't want done that people insist upon for their own reasons. It's not easy since everyone is a critic and everyone wants something to be placed in a way that may make no sense. Now on the Pashtun page we have people who insist that the Pashtuns are not Iranic at all. It's a never-ending thing on wikipedia. Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with taking out the studies that don't talk about all the Iranian peoples and whatever you have in mind sounds okay to me. Tombseye 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When Iranians started called themselves Iranians

This might be not relevant to the topics above. But interesting to know the answer if someone has a source for it. Might be an idea to put the answer in ethymology section here or in Iran.

We know for sure that Iran and Iranians widely called themselves so in times of Samanids and Ghaznavid dynasties since the term was extensively used in Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. We also know that different versions of the term is used in some Avestan text but not sure if those texts were widely used due to class system in Sassanid empire. Also if the term is used in tehr same context.

However, in the pre-Islamic times, I am not sure. Most Arab texts refer to Sassanid Iranians as Persians (فارسي) or Ajams (عجمي) and earlier times Greeks also used their equivalent of Persians. I wonder if the term was used for the first time by Iranians after Islamic era and possibly during Samanids. Persian Magi 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is since Iran means, Land of Aryans, and archeological evidence show that Cuneiforms indicate Darius I stated he was the King of Land of Aryans, then it may very well go back to Achaemenid era; 2500 years or so ago.Zmmz 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it goes back to the Achaemenids. See Behistun inscription. It was at least used by the Sassanids as the name of their empire (Eranshahr), but it's not clear how widespread it was otherwise. Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear. Was it used in the Shahnameh? My English ebook version of Firdausi doesn't have one Aryan in it, though that's hardly conclusive evidence. I also looked for noble or nobles, and got citations like, "the king and his nobles", which don't seem to imply an ethnic cognomen. What did people living in the area that is now Iran call themselves between 850 and 1935? Does anyone have any cites? Zora 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True, Shahnameh does not mention Arya. But, if you look at [Persian text] of Shahnameh you find many many mentions of the term Iran there which implicitly means Aryans. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, you're right, I was thinking of Aryan, not of Iran as Iran versus Turan. So we get a country, or an empire name (Eran, Iran), but not the name of a people. Fits with Garthwaite's thesis that the realm was constituted by the ruler, not by the people? [9] It's us moderns who put the "people" first. Zora 07:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear." Purely your opinion. Provide evidence that there is no "clarity." SouthernComfort 05:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking -- are there any cites that prove it was used? I haven't seen any such use of "Aryan" in the books I've read on those centures, but my reading is hit or miss, in English. If it's so common and well-attested, surely there would be some quotes that would show its existence? Zora 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard and read anywhere in Iranain sources the term "Aryan" being using before modern Iranian literature. I am not sure even if our poets and writers knew that Iran meant Persians, Meds etc. Remember Persepolis was called "Takhte-Jamshid" since no one knew it was Achamenid palace. Persian Magi 06:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Darius in Behistun inscription said: "I, Darius, great king, king of kings, king in Pars, King of countries, Son of Vishtasp, grandson of Arsham the Achamenid" and did not mention Aryans. Please refere to the complete text and its translation of Behistun inscription here. I went through the whole document and found no such a mention of Iran or Aryans. Even the ending mentions that he made another Cuneiforms with help of Ahuramazda where the writer interprets that Cuneiform as Aryan Cuneiform. So even there no mention of Arya by Darius himself! Lots of mentions of Pars and Parsi, however. And indeed lots of bragging even about gruesome details of punishments of defeated; ear cutting, eye poking etc.; well Darius was like any other empror with his own version of brutalities and not a saint. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it! I was wrong on the source (it's the Naqsh-i-Rustam, not the Behistun), but the inscription says:

2. (8-15.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. [10]

I would also think that claiming to be divinely ordained to rule by Ahura Mazda entails Zoroastrianism which means that the historical accounts from those scriptures, which do mention Aryans, would be relevant. Zora 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Land of Aryans"

The term Īrān in Modern Persian comes from the Middle Persian term Ērān which in turn comes from the Old Persian term ariya-. In the 19th century the term ariya- was "discovered" by archeologists and linguists studying various Iranian texts - and it was later incorporated into Modern Persian with a very limited usage (usually having to do with the history of Iran, race, and nationalism). So, to make a long story short, you cannot find any mention of the exact word "Arya" or "Aryan" in any Persian text between 300AD-1800AD. You can find it after and before, but not in between.

The term Ērān in MP, however, is a cognate of the OP ariya-. It's sad to see so many people going around saying "Iran means 'Land of Aryans'". How can a four-letter word mean "Land of Aryans"??? Iran, Eran, and ariya are altimately the same word: *arya- (the asterik means it's reconstructed). This "land of Aryans" business is probably coming from the other term Ērānšahr (MP pron.: airaan-shahr) which is usually translated "land of Iran" or "land of Iranians". But Iran by itself doesn't really mean anything. If you stretch it far enough you can say it means "noble", but I don't know where this "land of Aryans" nonsense is coming from. Probably some ultra-nationalist thing. Heh. Aucaman^Talk 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you said its nonsense, did you read the sources? How can you say Iran by itself doesn't mean anything when you have, your self, in the same paragraph, described where it comes from?!!! I can stretch it even further for you, Airyanem Vaejah, Aryana, Eranvej, Iran Shahr, Aryanam and Iran. It's always been pretty much the same title, but language has changed through out the time. It's sad to see a self pro-claimed "Iranian" denying his Aryan heritage - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We know that the word was used by the Achaemenids to describe a people, and by the Sassanids (and by Firdausi in writing the history of the Sassanids) to describe a land ... but it's not clear what words were used for realms and peoples between the Sassanids and the Pahlavis. I'm starting to suspect that it was discontinuous, but I could well be wrong. Instead of just stating "it's so", surely some cites could be found.

Ah, just found one reference. The Garthwaite first chapter says that "Iran was the term commonly used in Iran and by Iranians, except from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries." So he's saying it's discontinuous. Thirteenth century -- that would be after the Mongol invasions. Dang, I wish I had his book, I could turn to that chapter. Zora 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures: vote please

About the picture, I like the current one but it might be a good idea to include some people who are NOT Iranians citizens. This way it would clearly, at first look, show the readers that this category has nothing to do with Iranian citizens. Hamid Karzai is a very good choice but all the other people are from inside the borders of Iran and more than likely Iranian citizens or children of Iranian citizens. Maybe a Kurdish citizen of Turkey or a Tajik person would be a good idea. Gol 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The new picture now has a Persian Jewish guy from Israel that is still Iran-specific. I'd suggest, at the most 2 people from Iran, 1 Afghan, 1 Kurd, and someone from one of the other groups such as a Tajik, Baluch, Ossetian etc. Tombseye 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture really needs more diversity though. It's too Iranian/Persian specific and the picture of the Shaul Mofaz seems pointless as the section isn't about Persian Jews who are an Iranian people since they speak Persian so there is no cultural assimilation so that is the wrong place for that picture and there really isn't room anywhere for it on this page. The collage should include more diversity with a Kurd and a Tajik at least to be included. Persian-Canadian isn't really different from Persian for example. Tombseye 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before, and in the discussion you said the pic is fine, submit it. It is extremely difficult to get high quality, unique pics, and the copyright permissions from creators of the pics, and I have done so. As a compromise we can replace the Gilaki woman with a Kurd, but in text only, such that the pic is only a model representing generically Iranian peoples. So, she is actually representing a Kurd. In fact, the designer himself states, “My work is always inspired from my culture: Googoosh, Qajars, Kurds, Qashqais, as well as revolutionaries”, see pic description by the designer here. You can view his web site. And, I already added a pic of a Tajik. Also, Persian Jews, are as Iranian as anybody else.Zmmz 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with it, but this Pashtun guy who look at this article seemed to take offense to the page as it seems to be Persian top heavy. The Israeli guy is a Persian ethnically so it's pointless to have him and he's in the wrong section as he belongs in the religion section, but frankly the article is now too cluttered with pictures. The collage could be okay ethnic diversity, but detracts from the article at the top in my opinion and belongs in the place of the Tajik guy who should be added to your collage instead. The woman in traditional dress looks great under the culture section though and is appropriate to the section. Don't just add pictures to fill up space as that will make this article look less than appealing. Your collage at the top now has 4 Persians and 1 Pashtun. How is that representative? And then there is a Tajik, an eastern Persian basically and then another Persian from Israel. Do you not think that there are far too many Persians on this page?! Tombseye 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don’t. There is now, a Persian, a Kurd, a Tajik, Canadian-Iranian, an Afghan/Pashtun, and a Persian Jew. And, frankly I think I breathed life into the article with pics, as it was boringly only texts. The colleague belongs at the top, and should not be buried down there. Just the intro saying Iranian peoples is relevant enough to keep it up there. Please let’s have some other opinions here.Zmmz 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, tell the Pashtun guy, if he is so concerned with Iranian peoples, which I respect, then he could start with stating Pashtun are Iranian peoples in the intro of that article, instead of, keep erasing it there. Although, I have not tried to, nor want to mediate that article.Zmmz 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's have some more opinions on the subject actually. I've dealt with the Pashtun guy as best as I could. This page actually has 5 Persians (the boy at the top and the Iranian Canadian), the Persian woman in the cultural dress, and 2 Israelis of Persian origin. That's very disproportionate and I'm not alone in thinking so I don't think. This article is not People magazine is not meant to dazzle readers with pictures of people. It's meant to be an encyclopedic article and the pictures should be relevant to the sections and not simply pictures for hte sake of pictures. If one wanted to be fair, keep 1 picture of a Persian in the collage and 1 of the Persian woman in the cultural section. That's plenty. The collage should be 1 Persian, 1 Kurd, 1 Pashtun, 1 Baluchi or Ossetian, and 1 Tajik to be fair. I'm starting to think you're turning this page into a Persian page rather than a page about the Iranian peoples as a whole. Hope I'm wrong about that. Tombseye 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a collage, just one pic next to a section on each ethnicity and/or linguistic group claimed. Zora 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, a collage is needed for the introduction. --ManiF 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on collage

The pic contains one Persian, one Kurd, an Afghan/Pashtun, a diaspora Canadian-Iranian, and a Persian Jew who are as Iranian as anybody else. Also remember it is very hard to get copyrights to pics from creators, as I have done, which means the pic would not be deleted by Wiki. I think the pics breath life into the article, as Wiki as an encyclopedia has the advantage of having these pics placed in articles, so they do matter.

Keep-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep- I think the current picture is fine. No need to make it too diverse. You can not include all. By the way, Persians are the prominent part of Iranian peoples. So no problem in including more of them, in my opinion. Would have loved one Iranian Azeri/Turk in it too. But... Persian Magi 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change to reflect diversity. Persians comrpise about 1/4 of the Iranian peoples so, proportionally they should be 1/4 represented on this page. Otherwise, as we have seen already, other Iranian peoples and laypersons will think, wrongly, that Iranian peoples is a reference to the Persians or citizens of Iran only. Definitely, no Azeris as then frankly I personally will let the Turkish folks know that they can list Kurds as a Turkic people and I'm done with this page myself as clearly nationalism will have won over neutral academia. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change, per Tombseye.Heja Helweda 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Tajikistan President picture in the `Ethnic diversity` section

Keep- There is already a picture of a model in the collague, and I think because of the President`s status, his picture is a better fit. Also, his futures, are a better indication how vastly different Iranian peoples look from each other.Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Integrate into Collage or Delete. Any visuals should be relevant to the article and the sections. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and instead replace with Hammasa Kohistani. Tajik 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section

Delete-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete Persian Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the Iranian peoples, while the Kurds, Pashtuns, and others are as large or almost as large as the Persians. Completely not fair and irrelevant to the section it is placed in. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on adding a famous Baloch, Ossetian, Talysh, or Hazara to the page

• Include - I think we should only have an image of 1 Persian, to show the diversity in Iranian peoples is not limited to just Persians. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Include - I am already working on that, but let`s concentrate on the colleague and others.Zmmz 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly favor including-I agree with Khoikhoi here as there is not enough diversity of the Iranian peoples shown here and the pictures should relevant and not for decorative purposes. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I was talking about the collage. Nice work anyhow. :) —Khoikhoi 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then, stop the confusion please guys and vote under the correct heading; stating your concerns there. It is extremely hard to get copyrights for these pics, then make them, then somebody else turns around and says, “Oh, why did you add the vendor with a beard and a turban? ”; somebody says , “Don’t use Azeris, we are Azeri, fighting for our freedom, we are not Iranians, we need our rights back”, one guy says; “WHY ARE YOU PUTTING JEWS THERE?”; another guy says, “Add one of those Persians with blue eyes and blond hair”. Then there is this lovely guy who keeps erasing the fact that Pashtuns are Iranian people, but complains that there are no Pashtun pictures in an articl named Iranian peoples, which actually is incorrect because President Karzai is in fact, a Pashtun, and blah blah blah.....

I am really getting tired of all this nagging: every separatists, political group attacking these articles, every anti-nationalist, pro this or pro that; every nationalist with an agenda and a computer....etc….etc...Etc. Make-up your minds please, [vote], and if kept fine; if not, these are my pics, I have the rights for them, and I will delete them. These articles are a waste of precious time. So, once again, vote under the right section, and let` s get it over with please.Zmmz 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stay calm man. I understand your frustration, I know how it feels. I can make the image if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

After all my hard work, now you can make the image? OK. Wait in line, because ManiF is going to ask somebody to make his version, then yours will be deleted after a week, then some anti-nationalist [person] (you know who), is going to come and refute his version, and it goes on, and on. I don`t care anymore, you guys duke-it-out. BTW, thanks for voting in the other sections, and not as usual elongating these discussions. Good job guys.Zmmz 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on the Hazara Girl picture

• Keep-Zmmz 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on keeping cartoon picture such as the `Kurdish Sultan`, or replace them with real pictures

• Delete- As such it is about Iranian peoples, and pictures of real people are more appropriate.Zmmz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep-I don't think you understand what this article is about. It is about Iranic peoples past and present and from all over the Iranic world and that is not a cartoon, but a picture from the 12th century (close to Saladin's time). If another picture of Saladin is preferred, then fine. In addition, Durrani is an important Afghan figure as well. These pictures are far more relevant (and appropriate for the sections that they were placed in) then your pictures of random people placed throughout the page. This is not an ethnic survey article and pictures of real people can be used, but sparingly. Again, compare to Germanic peoples and Slavic peoples and you'll see what these types of articles, in the academic sense are meant for. The history section is about historical figures. What do you propose to put in instead, another picture of a Persian of today? Save that for the Persian people page or Iranian demographics. Tombseye 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurds of Turkey and Iranian Turks!!!

I see this comparison often used in arguments against including Iranian Turks here. This comparison is completely out of relevance here. Turkic people in Iran are Iranians and have been so through history of Iran from the past to present. Can you name one Kurdish ruler in Turkey in their history? Where is the Kurdish infleuence on historical Turkey or Othomans? Look at the history of Iran, Turkic Iranians ruled Iran through anciant times and modern Iran as Iranians. The numerous Iranian Turkic speaking scholars through history and modern times are anotehr indication of how Iranian they were. We are not talking linguistic groups here. If we do please refer to Iranian languages.

I think this comparison is completely un-academic and irevalent. I am sure people who are editing the pages relevant to modern Turkey and Turkic people have enough academic understanding not to do this comparsion. So lets not worry about them.

203.48.45.194 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you!

We never voted on inclusion of Iranian Turks who are mainly Azeris here in the list. I am strongly for inclussion of Azeris here.

I asked voters to reconsider a few options such as merging the article or changing the name to address the above but they were narrowly voted out.

However, the positive outcome of the discussions followed the voting was the inclussion of Iranic term and a wording to clear that a bit.

At this stage, due to the great contents of the article and with the above compromises, I am happy to keep it as is. But I would have loved to be able to convince editors to include Iranian Turks and not to be scared of what goes on other pages.

Persian Magi 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only rational acceptable to not include Iranian Turkic speaking people in the list is only linguistics and this article claims not to be solely about linguistics. I do not think any compromise is acceptable. 59.167.26.16 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, linguistics is the central criteria IN ADDITION to other factors. We already voted and majority rules so it is acceptable. As for the Kurds in Turkey, well actually many famous Turks, including leaders, have been Kurds and the cultures have clearly blurred together. If Azeris are going to be included here, then I see no reason why Kurds can't be considered "Mountain Turks" as the Turkish govt. used to refer to them as. You're all projecting modern Iranian/Persian nationalism in the place of rational neutrality. And as Persian Magi has correctly stated, we have done a lot to address the matter without directly incorporating the Azeris. Tombseye 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, you are missing the point here. No one have ever and could assume Shah Ismail as a non Iranian ruler of Iran and that is 500 years ago. Same goes with many other Iranian Turks through history. But Kurds in Turkey are called by the government and in modern times as mountain Turks!!! How do you compare these two situations???? It is not government of Iran calling someone Iranian. It is Ferdowsi calling Turkic Sultan Mahmood, king of Iran zamin, 1000 years ago. How can you even compare these two situations???? You tell me how that is rational neutrality to make such comparison? 203.48.45.194 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in addition, the Kurds have interacted with Turkic tribes for centuries and in Turkey their cultures often blend together in ways similar to the Persian-Azeri situation. The reality is that the Iranic and Turkic peoples diverge starting with language, but do share cultures and often bloodlines. However, that is something for the Turko-Iranian article and not this article which is about the Iranic peoples who must, first and foremost, speak an Iranian language which clearly the Kurds do and the Azeris do not. Also, references to peoples as "IRanian" is not relevant because Ferdowsi, for example would not have included the Pashtuns or the Ossetians as Iranians. He was talking about a culture centered in Persian-speaking regions, which had been conquered by Turks, many of whom were adopting or had adopted the Persian culture and language. The meanings of Iranian are obviously many and varied. For the purposes of this article, we are talking about the academic term regarding Iranian peoples who speak Iranian languages past and present. The other groups who have close ties are thus outside the parameters of this article. If you'll note, the history and origins sections that I wrote discuss the Iranian peoples of history. Ferdowsi would not particularly know or acknowledge the Sarmatians as an Iranian people, whereas for this article we are. Tombseye 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranians and Turks?

The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks who are often considered a closely related cultural group to Iranian peoples throughout history and in modern times.

What does this sentence mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togrol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2006.

Well, that was written to placate some folks who wanted the Azeris to be mentioned in some capacity and their status clarified as a closely related cultural group. It would properly refer to all non-Iranic citizens of Iran of course in addition to Turks. Tombseye 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The main or maybe the only reason to use the term IraniC is to avoid confusion with non-Iranian citizens. It has nothing to do with Turks or other peoples. The current way is too biased and should be corrected. Togrol 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term Iranic was meant to be applied to people who speak Iranic languages first and foremost and then have some other common linkages to varying degrees. Thus, Afghans who are Pashtun and Tajik are Iranic, whereas Uzbeks aren't. Also though, it is meant to avoid confusion with the term Iranians which is popularly used to describe all Iranians who include non-Iranic peoples such as Arabs and Turks. Hope that helps. Tombseye 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are Iranians

This article is not about linguistics alone, nor is linguistics its main point. Linguistic and cultural factors should be considered when classifying people, both to the same extent. Even if you want to give the preference to one of them, it should definitely be culture rather than language. We speak of the Iranian cultural continent, not the linguistic continent. Azeris are just as Iranian as other Iranians, and I do not mean citizenship of modern Iran when I use that word. With the same reasoning, Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are Iranian people. No compromise on these points is acceptable here, as it would severely reduce the validity of the article. Also, the term Iranic is being taken too seriously. The term is not common in academia, although used sometimes. Making it the main terminology of choice, by using it throughout Wikipedia, is thus original research. Wikipedia cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term Iranian. Shervink 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

You know then that there should be no problem with excluding the Kurds then. I mean since this article is turning into a Persian nationalist front article rather than an article about the Iranic peoples. Which ancient Iranic tribe are the Azeris to be linked to? What of their ties to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians and others? The Iranian peoples start with their language commonalities and then with other factors IN ADDITION. The Iranian languages article is about the languages and not the peoples who speak them. It's a very easy and clear distinction. And besides which we voted and most people favor keeping the article as is. You can't make unilateral decisions and go against the majority. Tombseye 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting to include Iranian Turkic speaking groups here

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Khoikhoi 01:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Majority" doesn't make any difference. See Wikipedia:Consensus. —Khoikhoi 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ends 1am (GMT) 8th May 2006

(I put a deadline so that this does not go forever... hope everyone agrees... Persian Magi 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I do not think we had this voting before. (The voting previously was for change of the name of the article etc. was to address this issue but not to include Azeris). Hope this will close the issue once for good.

For Inclusion

1. Strong support - I am a proud Azeri Iranian. If myself and the vast majority of Azeris from and near Iran consider ourselves Iranian, surely this should be accepted as the norm? I dont understand this debate
2. 59.167.0.169 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Iranian Turkic peoples were part of Iranian peoples through history and they are too importan in Iranian history and modern Iran to be excluded. I can not think of any comparison among other peoples.
3. Strong support - There is more to be "Iranian peoples" than the language. There is a definate cultural and historical component. Azeris are as much Iranian as any other Iranian tribe. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support - The term "Iranian peoples" has more to it than linguistic sense. Azeris and other Iranian Turks have been Iranians since historical ages as Iranians. It was a surprise that they were not included from the very begining. This has nothing to do with demographics of modern Iran by the way. 203.48.45.194 09:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support - I have been always advocate of this. No doubt Iranian Turks have been a vitat part of Iranian peoples since anciant history. Persian Magi 10:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support - Iranian turks have not been around in ancient history as stated above, but they have been part of iran for the last 800 years at least. They have been mixed with persians and other iranians, they are no longer turks, they are iranian turks. --Darkred 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support - It is better to include than to exclude. Kirbytime 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support - The main emphasis of this article is not language. We have an article on Iranian languages for that issue. This article is about people who are culturally Iranian, which is a very wide spectrum of people. We should clarify the cultural emphasis at the beginning of the article, and include all culturally Iranian people, including Azeris. Since this article in its current form is an article about language, if Azeris are not included at the end of this voting, I would suggest merging this article with Iranian languages. An article on Iranian people only makes sense if it really deals with people. Having a name for an article which has nothing to do with its contents, which is the case right now, is a wrong thing to do. Either merge this article with Iranian languages (if your emphasis is language), or accept that the emphasis is culture and include all Iranian groups. Please look at these as well:[11][12][13].Shervink 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
9. Strong support I did not know that it was possible to assume they were not Iranian peoples!!! Gharib Ghorbati 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. Well, enough said by others. I am convinced. By the way, I am new here. Took me a while to figure out I had to actually edit this to vote. Babak Kamkar 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support - I think what most people forget is that there were people called azeri's in iran prior to the turkic invasion, so the term is not a turkic term azarbaijan has been in existence long before the turks came. we shouldn't allow pan-turkism to decide for us here. George McFly 11:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC-5) :Just read what Mr George McFly said here: That there were people called the Azeris prior to the turkic invation. What more needs to be said. --Darkred 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong support - as per [14].Zmmz 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support - Too important not to be included. Nokhodi 06:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - Have to be included.
15. Strong Support - I can't beleive this has to be voted on, are there any Iranian Azari's who don't support this? Zkovic 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - How could they not be Iranian Gymkata 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - they're iranian, pure and simple Rugsnotbombs 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - They are Iranian!

Against Inclusion

1. Strong opposition-for reasons already stated, the inclusion of Turkic peoples or Arabs etc. will dilute the article and make any classification pointless. Instead Turko-Iranian should be developed as a platform for discussing the cultural overlap between Turkic and Iranic peoples across the board. Lastly, the article already now discusses the issue, whereas incorporating the Azeris (in the history and other sections) would be both problematic, subjective, and largely untenable since there is no Iranic ancient tribe that they can be linked to with certainty. Tombseye 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong opposition This has to be a ambitious Pan-Iranian joke. If this goes ahead, Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Georgians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Arabs, Serbs and other former Ottoman nationalities should be grouped together since they all have had a common history and their cultures overlap. Just think of the other kind of stuff we can come up with, Ethiopians being related to Italians, North african Arabs being related to the French, Filipinos to the Spanish:) --Kilhan 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use foul language. Iranian Turks are a unique situation. Have you seen an Ethiopian dynasty ruling Italy and calling themselves Roman kings? Are they living in Italy since dawn of time? Then, yes you can include Ethiopians as Italians. 203.48.45.194 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose per reasons above. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose This is simply absurd and has nothing to do with scientific approach. It is well known that Azeris are Turkic people, check any encyclopedia. With all due respect to Iranian people Azerbaijanis are not one of them, and it is a well known fact. Grandmaster 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is an overlap between the two category of peoples. There are some Iranian peoples who are also Turkic. I am not sure where the problem is there? By the way we are not trying to conquer anything here. We are trying to explain what 'Iranian peoples', mean. Does that mean only speakers of Iranian languages, then fine merge this article with Iranian languages and all done. But this article talks about Iranian peoples and Turks of Iran are and have been Iranian peoples since history. 203.48.45.194 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose While Azeris (as well as the majority in Iraq, Turkmenistan, or even Turkey) may be Iranian by origin [15] (if you take a look at that map, you'll see that genetically Azeris are almost totally "Western Eurasian" and thus deffinitly not Turkic by heritage) , they are clearly Turkic in language. After all, this article classifies Hazaras as "Iranic people", although the Hazaras are mostly Turco-Mongol by origin. Tajik 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose For all reasons above. Groups are defined by language and a shared culture and not by nebulous hypothesis of ancestry . While no doubt Azeris share the great heritage of Iranian civilizations, so are Ottomans and Uzbeqs. One may talk in lands of Islam of Turkish-Persian realm, as opposed to Arabian one in North Africa and Levant. This is a cultural entity and not ethnic one. abdulnr 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose. More nonsense. Since when do we "vote" over factual accuracy disputes? This article is supposed to be about the speakers of Iranian languages. The Azeris don't speak an Iranian language. Aucaman^Talk 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. Why is this article not merged with Iranian languages if this article is about language only??? If this is not only linguistics and includes culture etc. then why not include Azeris???

1. Strongly oppose. This claim is simply ridiculous.. --Tabib 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. This claim is simply absurd and ridiculous, now Persians are telling Azeris who they are. Every encyclopedia will tell you Azeris are Turkic people. Baku87 13:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Why are you taking too personally. It is not Persians. I am as Turkic as you are. But that does not mean I am not an Iranian. My ancessetors ruled Iran as Iran and Iranians. Every piece of Iran has a Turkic finger print on it. We have been one people since history. No one claiming anything about current nationals of Republic of Azerbaijan or Iran. This is all about history. And if you read your history books well. Iranian Turks were Iranians since they were mentioned in history 1000 years ago. 203.48.45.194 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Iranian turks have been in iran for around 1000 years, do you really think they would still be turks after all that time? Persians are not pure persian either, they too have been mixed alot with other iranians, so if you want to exclude azeris then you would have to exclude all other iranian people. You have to understand that Azeris are not turks, they are iranian turks. It is the fact that they are iranian that makes them Azeris, otherwise they could just as well be called turks and be joined with turkey. Persians are not telling them who they are, it is they that consider themselfs and are iranian. Persians have ruled them as much as they have, there are as much persian finger print on turkic places and people in iran as the other way around. We are not talking about one group be superior the other here, we are talking about brotherhood. --Darkred 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I do not see any cultural uniformity between Iranian Turks, Azerbaijanis in particular and other Iranians. They are close- of course, any people living this close, this long would influence each other- but still culturully distinct. --TimBits 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Tombseye.Heja Helweda 23:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - this must be a joke--Aldux 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Telex 17:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I very much respect the Iranian nation. I also respect a Turkish nation. So, please no accusations. This is a mere factual accuracy issue. Different linruistic groups are a fact here. --Irpen 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose Also someone needs to format the autonumbering and the headings here... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed compromise

How about we include a sub-section of the list of Iranian peoples called "considered Iranians culturally but not linguistically"? That sounds pretty fair to me. —Khoikhoi 18:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree That's a good idea. That way, we can list up all peoples that have been influenced by Iranians and not only the Azeris (who, btw, are not as much "Iranian" as Uzbeks). Tajik 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm, well if we list all the ethnic groups influenced by Iranians, the list would get too large. Let's go with Azeris for now. —Khoikhoi 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - Only focusing on Azeris (who are not as much "Iranian" as Uzbeks) won't solve the problem. This article is about the ethno-linguistic group of "Iranian peoples", meaning those who share common heritage, history, culture and related languages. While Azeris may be "Iranic" or "Indo-European" by their genetic heritage and to some extent even in their culture, they are not Iranian in language. Uzbeks, for example, have even an "Iranized" language: their language is not typical Turkic: it contains even grammatical elements of Persians and other Iranian languages. This article only focuses on the ethnic groups living in Iran, while it totally ignores Turkic peoples in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, like the Chahar Aimaq for example. Tajik 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree* It is a great idea. We should just avoid sounding too political and make it neutral as in stating the fact that e.g. "..Iranian culture has been influential in the central Asia, by Turko-Iranian people such as Uzbeks, etc..." -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - in case no consensus occurs above or inclusion does not succeed. However, I do not think any other group should be included than Iranian Turks. The case of Iranian Turks and Iranian Azeris is really unique. It is like Sun and other stars. Sun is a star but not every other star is our Sun. So I do 'not' think we can include Uzbecks, Arabs etc. dedicating a part to Iranian Turks and Azeris is quite necessary if no inclusion occurs. Persian Magi 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - If inclusion does not go ahead, this is the least we can do to reflect the importance of Azeris as a part of Iranian peoples. Gharib Ghorbati 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - As i stated above azeris and other iranian turks are not turks they are as much iranian as the persians.

They have been mixed with all other iranian ethnic groups, thus they are no longer turks and should be included in the list.

I know this because i am one of them, half persian half turkic(not azeri). --Darkred 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - why are you singling out Azeris? Either you include Uzbeks, Afgans, Indian Muslims and Turks of Turkey who were influenced by Persian culture or do not create such a subsection. abdulnr 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't agree - I agree with abdulnr. Either you make a complete list or don’t make any at all. Grandmaster 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree I think it is necessary to include Iranian Turks (please note Azeris are not all Iranian Turks) as a group here. Please also note we are not trying to redefine 'Iranian peoples' here. This term has been used for all Iranian Turks, including Azeris during history. Please note the two way influence and its importance of Iranian Turks. We do not have Arabs claiming as Iranian Kings or Ozbecks for that matter. The Iran-ness of Iranian Turks had not been even questioned until when Soviet emergence and formation of Azerbaijan Republic. If someone knows of any source on the contrary, please bring it on here. 203.48.45.194 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing citizenship with ethnicity. These are different things. This page discusses ethnicity only. Grandmaster 05:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are mixing ethnicity of turks with Azeris. Azeris and other iranian turks are in fact ethnic Iranians, having been mixed with Persians and other ancient Iranian groups. --Darkred 06:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Darkred. Also I specifically mentioned history in my comments to avoid confusion with citizenship. Citizenship is a new concept, virtually. Iranian Turks are called Iranians since historical times of Ghaznavid, when there was no passports around, so to speak. 203.48.45.194 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree I agree with abdulnr. Baku87 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87
• I don't agree - as per [16].Zmmz 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop inventing terms, no original research is allowed here. Show me a reliable source claiming that Azeris are not Turkic people. See Britannica, for example:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [17] Grandmaster 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are the one inventing things. When did we say azeris are not turkic people? We are saying they are turkic iranian, which includes them as iranian people. --Darkred 09:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember Turkic is not Turkish, Turkish only refers to people from Turkey --Darkred 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, is there such ethnicity as Turkic-Iranian? I never heard of it. Grandmaster 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and its name is Azeri, Qashqai and the rest of the iranian-turkic groups. --Darkred 10:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Can you give us a quote from some reliable source to prove that there’s an ethnicity called Turkic-Iranian? Azeris are either Turkic or Iranian, they can’t be both. Now an excepted academic view is that they are Turkic, if you have a reliable source proving otherwise, you can provide it here. Grandmaster 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, have a look at Encyclopaedia Iranica by the reknown scholar Ehsan Yarshater. There are plenty of Iranian Turkic groups since history. Look for Afshars, for example.

One more point, when you heard people call Lurs, as Lur-Iranian or Gilaki-Iranians or Persian-Iranian? When it is so obvious that Azeris and other Turkic groups were Iranians, then no one uses that prefix. Hope this helps. 203.48.45.194 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This not a quote. The Iranica website is big, I asked for a quote, stating that Azerbaijanis are one of Iranian people. For example I quoted Britannica, and I cited a paragraph and provided a link so that you could check the authenticity of the quote. That’s the way it’s done. You need to quote an authoritative source stating that Azerbaijanis are one of Iranian people. If that’s not done, any user has a right to remove an unsourced material. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. According to the rules, any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. Bear that in mind. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Now where does it say that Azerbaijanis belong to Iranian people? A proper quote, please. Grandmaster 08:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this [18]. The website contains many scholarly articles, and is a reliable one since it is maintained by a university research group. You will find that they consider Azeris as Iranians throughout their pages. Also, it is a misconception that Azeris living outside Iran are actually Azeris. In fact, they are Arranis, and the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan has been motivated politically. Its correct name would be Arran [19]. Shervink 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Very nice, an article called “Language of Azeri People and Pan-Turkism”. Man, do you really want me to take this seriously? How about citing an authoritative academic source? I for example cited Britannica, can you cite a reliable, authoritative source? Grandmaster 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcastic tone is not at all appreciated, and you should change it if you want to have a serious conversation. The source conforms with all Wikipedia guidelines, and its contents are directly relevant here. Shervink 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

If you want a serious conversation, you should cite a serious source. Try referring to something written outside of Iran and not poisoned by chauvinist propaganda of the Iranian regime. Find a neutral authoritative source backing up your claims. Otherwise this voting is irrelevant and anyone has a right to remove information lacking a source. You still don’t understand what a reliable source is. Grandmaster 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, this is the last time I'm going to turn a blind eye on your personal insults. The source is provided on a University of London website. The entire work there is academic research and reviews. None of the things presented there match the Islamic regime's perspectives, and even if they do, that does not necessarily make them unreliable. You should learn how to behave yourself on wikipedia before starting a conversation. The matter is closed, and the obvious conclusion is that Azeris, as we all know, have elements from both cultures, and it is both common and correct to list them as Turkic or Iranian, or both at the same time. There is logically no way to disagree with that, the sources are reliable and verifiable and thus we should proceed with including Azeris here.Shervink 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

When did I personally insult you? Please show me. I just asked you to provide an authoritative and unbiased source according to the rules, which you failed to do so far. Grandmaster 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling other peoples' ideas, be it mine or others' with whom I disagree, chauvinistic propaganda is an insult. The source complies with all wikipedia regulations, and furthermore with any academic or scholarly standards. I don't mind if you choose to neglect sources which do not favor your point of view, but there are ways in wikipedia to make you comply with the regulations. As the sources clearly support both Turkic and Iranian aspects, as does common sense, I think there is no question as to whether Azeris should be included here. We should proceed to include them in the article. Shervink 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Grandmaster take a look at your own source at the Shah Ismail page: [20], you obviously tried to provide a source that says Azeris are turks, but the source does not once mention that Azeris are turks, neither did it have anything to do with Shah ismail. Now if you want to be taken serious here i suggest you cite your own serious source first. --Darkred 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What shah Ismail page has to do with this one? If you want to discuss Shah Ismail, go to the talk page of the respective article. If you want a source that Azeris are Turkic people, see my quote from Britannica above. And I don’t actually need to cite my sources, according to the rules, the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. So if you want to include Azeris as Iranian people, cite a reliable source, please. Grandmaster 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry grandmaster i didn't even bother to read what you had to say this time: if you want to know how to be taken seriously take a look what shervin said above, cite sources that are actually correct, and most of all learn how to speak to others. --Darkred 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Still no source. Grandmaster 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, did you hear me say they are called turkic-iranian? No, i said they are called azeri and their ethnicity is iranian turkic(which means they are a mixture of iranian people and turkic).

It could not be more simple than that, so please stop inventing stuff for yourself then say i said it. --Darkred 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There’s no such ethnicity as Iranian turkic. Please cite your sources. Grandmaster 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not gonna discuss this any further as it seems you only hear what you want to hear. However if you're looking for sources i believe 203.48.45.194 gave you one, take a look above. --Darkred 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Support - my ancestry states it and so do i, it is clear that azeri's have always been of iranic stock...and NOT turkic...

Comments on inclusion of the Azeris

Comment: - Ottomans conquered those places, however Azeris (ex-Medes) have been part of Iran from the very beginning. Infact at the beginning of the Persian empire there were probably more Medes than Persians -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's highly argumentative that the Azeris are descendents of the Medes. For example, the Azeris may or may not regard them as ancestors while most will claim the Oghuz and sometimes the Albanians of the Caucasus as ancestors. In addition, the Medes are claimed as the ancestors of the Persians and the Kurds (although linguistic and genetic evidence points towards the Kurds being more eclectic at any rate) as well. Without that linguistic continuity to show some link to the ancients, we have conjecture and largely guesswork. Tombseye 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never read anywhere that Medes are claimed as ancestors of the Persians, I think that is not correct. The only claims that I know of are that of Azeris and Kurds. The Kurdish genetic tests are far from good quality IMO, the ones I have seen did not test Kurds of Iran which discredits much of the project. There is no question about Kurds being Iranian people just because of their language, but I think Azeris should be included because of atleast some genetic evidence backing up that they are Iranian (See Azeris#Origins) and if they do indeed share the same ancestors as Kurds (Medes), then this would be out of question (as there is supporting evidence that Azeris are close to Persians - then we should certainly mention them, and the fact they have been part of Iran from the very begining and still are the biggest ethnic "minority" group in Iran (20% or so). -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim that it's accurate, I'm saying that the Medes being an ancient people can and are claimed by various groups as their putative ancestors. Now as to the Azeris and the Kurds, the Kurds often view the Medes as one of their main ancestors, while the Azeris don't as much. Actually, the tests for the Kurds outside of Iran are perfectly viable and cannot be used as evidence of the Kurdish lineages of those living in Iran. Yes, well there are no doubt Arabs who have some Iranian ancestry (a good friend of mine from Iraq who considers himself an Arab has a Kurdish mother for example). This is all speculative since we cannot prove that the Medes are the ancestors of the modern Azeris, although some bloodlines are no doubt there since there is no linguistic connection. What's more the genetic tests of Azeris in Azerbaijan (not the ones in Iran) show the closest links to the Armenians and other peoples of the Caucasus followed by Iranian peoples and Turkmen. Lastly, we're not doing an article on Iran, past or present, as this article is about all of the Iranian peoples. This seems like more of a concern of Persians in Iran rather than an objective attempt to define the Iranian peoples in a way that is both quantifiable and discernable as opposed to based upon 'traditional' views and purported descent. Tombseye 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are of Turkish origin. They are the most and most pure Turks. Azeris are more Turkic than even Anatolian Turks. Whatever you hear of Iranian/Persian minority is that to pretend that Azeris were an Iranian people who changed their language without mixing with their Turkic ancestors!! or their neighbouring caucasians. Azeris in second degree (after Turkic) have a caucasian mix. The same goes for Persians. Several times during history large linguistic populations migrated to the so-called Iranian plateau. One of these but only with few invaders were Iranians/persians. The other larger imigration was by Turkic groups. Turkic languages are today the most widely spoken languages in all over Iran (or modern Turan). Turkic languages are and have been spoken in EVERY region in Iran even in Fars province!!. After immigration of Turkic population, the region more resemble to Turan than to an outdated Iran!! Togrol 09:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking purity here, Togrol. No one claims anyone to be pure anything. We are talking about evolution of a term that is refered to a group of people as "Iranain peoples". We want to precisely describe who they are. Azeris and other Iranian Turks, myself included, have had Iranian identity at least since Ghaznavid times. You might be right and we might be originally more Turkic than you guys in Turkey. However, we have been Iranian since history and that is what counts here. That is actually the point missing in this article. Iranian Turks are not a modern phenomenon. They have been Iranians since about 1000 years ago. And they are not Anatolian Turks, by the way. 203.48.45.194 10:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many anons here. No offense, but people who take part in voting and discussions should have some username to go by to avoid the same person claiming different identities. 'Iranian' identity as you are defining it is in reference to what was Persia and became Iran. This article is not about just Iran and cannot be used to promote Iranian perspectives, but is instead meant to relate how the various IRanian peoples, past and present came to be. I suggest you expand the Turko-Iranian article which would be the proper place to discuss the merger of the two groups. Tombseye 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken! :) Just too lazy to create an account and sign in every time. I agree with you that we are not promoting anything here. The problem is the term 'Iranian peoples' does mean a lot different than what this article is talking about right now. It simply does not reflect only speakers of Iranian languages! If so, then the question remains why the current article is not merging with Iranian languages? If it should not, then we should be more specific about the criteria about who to include. Why a certain group with ambigious links to Iran is included and Azeris with the most vivid links to Iranian culture are excluded. The matter is not emotional nationalism. The matter is to use a right term that means the same for all and as used in academia. That is why the comments such Togrol's (above) does not have a place here. Hope that helps. 203.48.45.194 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Groups are defined by language and a shared culture and not by nebulous hypothesis of ancestry. While no doubt Azeris share the great heritage of Iranian civilizations, so are Ottomans and Uzbeqs and Urdus and Pashtuns. One may talk in lands of Islam of Turkish-Persian realm, as opposed to Arabian one in North Africa and Levant. This is a cultural entity and not ethnic one. For instance - Iranians include all Iranian speaking peoples (Khazaras as was pointed out. Culture is evolving thing though and not reliable - Azeris in the north are growing to be much less Iranian by culture that the southern counterparts. Mother tongue rather than customs is most important cultural forming medium. abdulnr 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

abdulnr 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if Ottomans, Uzbeqs and Pashtuns have been influenced by iranian culture, they are not part of iranian civilization. However the azeris are, so are all other turkic groups of iran, they are as much Iranian as the Persians, and i may point out that it has nothing to do with islam. --Darkred 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns are Iranic by culture, heritage, and language. To some extent even more than Kurds or other Iranic peoples. Tajik 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are, most of them do not consider themselfs iranian, they even think of arabs as their brothers. --Darkred 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is too far away from the main purpose of this article! Pashtuns are an Iranic people, no matter what many of them believe or say (keeping in mind that Pashtuns, unfortunatly, belong to one of the most uneducated communities with probably the highest rate of illitracy). There are many Iranians who do not believe in Iranian identity or history and fight for an Arabized "Greater Islamic Ummah". Should we removed the Persians from this article only because Persian-dominated Iran is ruled by a fundamentalist Islamic, pro-Arabic government?! Tajik 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is getting too far from this subject, perhaps we should continue this in another place. --Darkred 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think (or hope) that all this controversy started because of misunderstanding. To answer a question if Azeris are Iranian people we need to identify who are Iranian people and who are Turkic people. Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages, and Iranian people are those who speak Iranian languages. Since Azeris speak a Turkic language, they are not Iranian people. Simple as that. Everyone can see that the inclusion of Azeris as Iranian people received no support from Azeris and so far the only result is that it seriously damaged the relations between the two communities here. That’s not the way it should be. Grandmaster 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

i completely disagree. my whole family is azari from zanjan and ardebil and none of us considers ourselves as turks or torks. there is a big difference between azari's from iran, and the ex-soviet azari's. we speak the language but that's it, and the language is half persian anyway. my non azari friends who speak persian always understand what we say in our house because of the large number of persian words. i honestly don't know any azari from iran who calls himself tork or turk, atleast no one i've ever met. maybe because you're from the ex-soviet azarbaijan and have closer ties to turkey you feel that way. further more, azari's and azarbaijan have existed long before the turks migrated to that area. the biggest azeri festival in the world is on july 9th at babak's fort in iran. babak of course is one of the greatest azari hero's who existed prior to the turks migrating. how do you explain that then? babak wasn't a turk, but he was azari. just Read This, and please note the spelling they use, azari, not azeri. i think you need to understand the viewpoint of the majority of azari's who live in iran and that azari's were there before the turks came. thanks George McFly 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC-5)

It is a joke!!

Not only Azeri Turks in Iran consider themselves as Turks but even all Iranians know and call them as Turks. The famous saying ye rooz torke... (one day a Turk...) may help you remember the reality!

0,0000000000001% of ultranationalists of persian minority TRY to claim Turks are Iranic! Turks are a majority in Iran and have ruled the country for thousands years (as even confessed above) both in Iranian history and demographics they are dominant hence it is easy to understand how those ultranationalistic persians feel! Togrol 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the main question is what language do Azeri people speak? It is a common knowledge that Azeri language belongs to the family of Turkic languages, and hence the answer to the question. Despite close cultural ties with Persian people Azeri people are Turkic. See Ethnologue: [21] Grandmaster 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

so should we consider irish people as anglo-saxons because they speak english now? or how about native americans? are they english because they speak english? the language you speak has no bearing on your genetics and is not mutually exclusive to your ethnicity. also, all azari's in iran speak persian as well and last time i checked there are no turkish words used in persian, but azari and turkish are full of persian words. you cannot deny the fact that azari's were in iran before the turks migrated. please answer me this, was Babak_Khorramdin azari or not? and if you, like 1000% of the world, say yes he was azari, then you've nullified your argument because he was an azari who lived in iran 200 years before the turks even migrated. George McFly 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There’s an Irish (Gaelic) language, and there are languages of native American people. Those languages are still spoken by those people. There’s an Azeri (Turkic) language too, so the speakers of this language are Turkic people. Ancient languages of Azerbaijan are extinct, nobody speaks ancient Albanian or ancient Azeri, except for tiny groups in remote villages. So not real argument, the question is what language do Azeri people speak now, and how is it classified in academic sources. Grandmaster 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic is also an almost extinct language, spoken and understood by a small community that is slowly but surely dying. So, are you trying to say that modern African-Americans are "ethnic Germanics"?! Tajik 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Germanics? Never heard of such. Grandmaster 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For your information: Germanic peoples Tajik 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an answer to your question: The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages. So any member of such a nation belongs to Germanic people regardless of race. Same with Iranian and Turkic people. Note that the List of Germanic peoples includes "cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world, including large groups of English speakers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand". Grandmaster 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"... cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world ..." Now, do you really think that todays Azeris are "cultural descendants of Turko-Mongol uymaqs of Central-Asia"?! I do not think so ... And, btw, you did not answer my question: do African-Americans and American-Hispanics belong to "Germanic" and "Romanic peoples"?! And what about the Russianized Azeris, Uzbeks, and Kazachs in Eurasia ... are they "Slavic people" and "cultural descendants of ancient Slavs"?! Maybe we should start with Gary Kasparov who was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. Is he a "Slav"? Tajik 10:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question. African-Americans and Latin Americans belong to their respective language groups. That what the article on Germanic people says. And I find this discussion to be really irrelevant, it said in the article that The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages, for the same token Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages and Iranian people are those who speak Iranian languages. It is a fact that Azeri language is Turkic, so Azeris don’t belong to this category. End of story. Grandmaster 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

first, the irish gaelic language is basically non-existent, so that voids your argument. second, we can just use your own logic to conclude that azari's should be a part of this group because every azari in iran speaks persian as well. so if every azari speaks persian, then we should use your own argument, The Iranian peoples are the nations speaking Iranian languages, every azari in iran is "bilingual", i am an azari, i'm bilingual, nashod dadash, olmade qardash... George McFly 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What’s your native tongue? Grandmaster 15:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Second - the Celtic languages are not extinct and being much revived. I can certify that Welsh language is taught in schools, and nowadays more than 40% in Wales are bilingual. Scot and Irish gaelic are spoken by 4-10% of population, but is taught in schools and TV channels are devoted to it. Most of all there is strong feeling of belonging to a cultural and ethnic tradition diffrent from Germanic Peoples, that thousand years of English domination could not kill. Whereas English have Beowulf Irish have bards and druids folkore substantially different. Whereas cultural influence of Persian is undenyable strong - It is also very strong in Turkey (yet you chose to exclude Turks of Turkey from the Iranian peoples- Persian was spoken by peoples all over Middle East in India!). Yet Turks have their traditions that are distinctly outside Iranian cultural orbit - Kitabi Dede Gorgud, Ashugs playing saz, tales and a strong Nomadic tradition that is absent from the Iranian culture. This is in addition to the language. So 1) Language 2) culture that is distinct. abdulnr 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there is not much difference between Iranians, Turks, or even Arabs, except for some minor things (like certain traditional folklore, etc). And in this case, Azeris even share many "national heroes and legends" with Persians, like Babak and the Khurramiyyah. Although Babak was an ethnic Iranian, today Azeris consider him one of their own. Azeris also celebrate "Nowruz", undeniably an Iranic cultural element. Turks of Turkey share the "typical Islamic and oriental culture" with Persia, but Azeris, Uzbeks, and Punjabis are much stronger connected to Iranian legends and culture than any other "non-Iranic" peoples. While Punjabis and Uzbeks have also a different ethnic background, Azeris are closely related to Iranians by genetics.

However, I do support your opinion that Azeris should not be listed in this article ... for other reasons listed above.

One last points: "Âshiqs playing Sâz" (the first word is Arabic and means "lover", the second one is a Persian word given to music instrument) is not "unique Turkish culture", but the common Perso-Islamic culture that was adopted by Turks. Sufism and Sufi-music originated in Iran and India. Until today, India and Pakistan are the centers of Sufism and Sufi music, while Persia was the center of Sufi poetry. Tajik 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, The issue here is basically this. Some Iranian Azeris do feel excluded if not named as Iranian, as they find this offensive and separatist. I have to assure them that they are and will be citizens of Iran, partaking in Iranian civilization as much as they want. The language/ethnic groups however have to be defined and defined by groups, as is the scientific custom. The reason it is done this way, because it will be extremely hard to do this any other way except genetic testing of large segments of population. Until this scientific breakthgouth people will be subdivided based on "language group" abdulnr 21:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Azerbaijan and Azeri Separatists should not worry about this voting...

Please do keep in mind that this article is defining a term as in scholarly manner and includes historical aspects of the term. So I am not sure why Azeris of North and Separtists (if any) are too worried about inclusion of Iranian Turks here. I have a feeling that they have started a campaign of vote collection here as I see new names joining to the vote. However, they are more than welcome to come and vote and appreciate their sensitivity. But hope, they are not compormising accuracy and scholarly content in favour of short term political agenda. 203.48.45.194 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment: it is sad to see that political separatists groups funded by Petroleum Politics` mouthpieces who adhere to the Bernard Lewis Plan in which Mr. Lewis as an advisor to the current administration (a la Ahmet Chalabi and the weapons of mass destruction info/fiasco)is lobbying to dismember a country like Iran into various pieces. The goal is to take yoke of the oil rich Caspian Sea basin by merging Iranian Azerbaijan with the Soviet dismantled Republic of Azerbaijan. Then simultaneously they wish to give the oil haven Ahvaz in the south to the neighbouring Arabs for the same reasons, AND the fact that this will officially “Effectively neutralize the sovereign state of Iran by dismembering it”. Under the banner of human rights, many good-intentioned people (people like editors in this dynamic site) are being manipulated via cut-and-paste reversionary history pushed by some paid authors (Dr. Brenda Schaffer from Harvard U, who is the main “expert”/advisor on the Azerbaijan issue, that as it turns out is an ex-intelligence advisor to Israel`s Defense Minister) and native political activists into sub-consciously perpetuating hatred, and segregation via ethno-conflicts. What these “experts” fail to mention is the mighty legacy of ancient Persia in the Caucus[22]. They also seem to get selective amnesia in that they fail to mention the area now known as the Republic of Azerbaijan was previously occupied exclusively by the Alans; Sakans; Tats, and Talysh who are Iranian peoples, and in fact until 20th century the area was called Atuparkan (middle-Persian). Many of them escaped the wrath of the invading Huns/Turks and went deep into Ukraine and other places. Indeed, it was after such invasions that these people who stayed behind mixed with the Turks and became Iranian-Azeris; providing sufficient evidence that although Azeris are Turkic speaking, they are in fact descendents of Iranian peoples, making them pronouncingly different than the Turks/Huns in Turkey, or the Tatars for example. What these “experts” also seem to have forgotten is the fact that the Western governments were in shock and aw upon realising most of the southern Russian, ex-Soviet Union countries like Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan have a heavy Persian legacy, and try very hard to suppress this from the media, in that they do not wish any Iranian influence in the oil wealthy Caspian basin region. Yet, for some, even after a millennium of separation from Persia, and despite the heavy Soviet influence, to this day, they willingly celebrate the Persian culture, and regard it as their own (even in the so called North Azerbaijan, the people in Baku still consider the Persian new year as one of their biggest holidays).

Curiously President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and his administration are dubbed by the UN as having one the worst human rights records in the world. Aliev and company have lend a crucial hand to terrorist groups like SANAM[23] led by another career-less college drop-out, namely Mr.Chehreganli, or the Nazi like Grey Wolf movement[24] who work feverishly to spread propaganda; “Turkish Language and the Native Americans”?, Turkemenistan President, Separmurat Niyazov narrative of Prophet Noah as Turkish”in Iranian Azerbaijan, and by distorting history have succeeded to an extent to buy the sympathy of some Azeris (Wikipedia is a great example of this) against the “Chauvinist Persians”. But the glimmer of hope here is, actually the majority of Azeris consider themselves as proud Iranians, and are deeply offended by the call for them to join the Turks: their Safavid ancestors fought valiantly against the occupation by the Ottoman Empire. One would hope they would truly promote peace, kinship, and education to these ethnic peoples. Yet, what all this will mean is further unfortunate loss of lives, time, and resources that will eventually backfire against these groups. What people need to understand is these are simply history, and no amount of lobbying, or internet hooliganism can change that. The ties of these dignified people to Persia are just too ancient.Zmmz 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is really sad indeed. My point was only to let those who are raising the stake for separitism was that they are campaining against inclusion of Azeris and other Turks here in Irianian peoples not even paying attention to the fact that they are going against the big picutre and depriving Azeris and Iranian Turks form their fair share of credit in Iranian history. I am not sure how much they do care about Azeris. If they do. They should be voting for inclusion in fact. They also forget that Wikipedia is a commonwealth of information and etiquete is not place POVs and political agendas here.

If you can read Azeri in Latin, have a look at their article on Iran in Azeri language. Instead of talking about Iran as an informative topic, they are talking about how Iranian governments have supressed Turkic languages in Iran!!!! Fortunately, I have strong links to my Turkish heritage and know how to read and write proper Azeri in its traditional alphabet. But can only read the newly adopted Latin alphabet and am not a fast typer there. So I could not contribute to the truth and accuracy in there. 203.48.45.194 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism works both ways though. You surely can't believe that you are bereft of any nationalist sentiments yourself. As for selective amnesia, are you forgetting that what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan (Arran) was also home to the Caucasian Albanians who were a majority in the region? Or that the Azeris genetically cluster with Armenians and other Caucasus peoples moreso than with Persians? Or that they speak a Turkic language and thus fail the main criteria? I'm fairly certain I'm not playing any nationalist game and from what I can gather, selective interpretation can work both ways. Ultimately, in accordance with the other articles that describe similar groupings such as Germanic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Latin, Turkic etc. we should be complying with the basic academic view that Azeris simply don't qualify as an Iranic people. If the Azeris are trying to foment 'separatism' I would submit that you are trying to overlook the things that make the Azeris different in order to include them in this article, that is not about people who don't speak an Iranian language. Tombseye 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Chauvinism of all sides was mentioned, and indeed it exists in minute traces among Persians as well. Those who are trying to vociferously exploit ethno-conflicts stand to gain nothing but embarrassment at the end. The Albanians in Arran were not relevant to this article, but actually, yes, that goes further to prove Arran was a region not consisting of Turkic speaking people long before the Turks/Mongols drove many of them away, and Azerbaijan is just a convenient gnome created by the pippeline politicians of the British Empire era a la 1910. What happened intermittingly, in which the Turks invaded these Iranian tribes, and the Albanians were driven out, and imposed their language on them via Elite Dominance, does not change their original ancestory. It is deceptively misleading to call these people Azeri only. Yet, as mentioned the Iranian-Azeris can trace their origin back to Sakas/Alans that may show genetic similarity to their European counterparts, because there is very good reason for that.

A. Sakas/Alans/Scythians were Indo-European tribes.

B. They were all Iranian peoples; both genetics and linguistics have recently proven that, and they had a kinship with their Persian counterparts.

C. Many of them escaping into Europe, namely/mainly the Ukraine and mingling with people as far as the Celts and ancestor to the Dutch, taking with them many Iranian inventions such as the Dutch windmill, and the Ukrainian pants (shalvar, which later spread into to Western Europe and today is the pants we wear, instead, of a Toga) with them.

So, these reasons illustrate why genetically they are comparable with Europeans; yet, most of the scholarly world today, undisputedly agree these were all originally Iranians, in language, customs, genetics etc, and they bear a strikingly close resemblance to their Persian, Mede, and Samartian cousines (one intresting note is, the Scythians for example were the only ones next to Persians, and Medes who were allowed to carry the ceromonial dagger at Persepolis). Any reputable scholar will also acknowledge linkage among ethnic groups is not as simple as mere language; rather it includes an array of factors such as, linguistics, history, anthropology, archeology, and nationalism. One is compelled to ask the question; why despite tremendous influences for the past millennium, these ethnic groups are to this day so proud of their Persian legacy that they consider its culture as their own? Azeris are as much Iranian peoples in culture, heritage, history, ancestry, and even genetics that unfortunately no amount of internet hooliganism or prejudice can change that: it is simply history. Zmmz 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Albanians are relevant to the discussion and the genetic studies actually support a link to the Caucasus moreso than Iranic peoples.[25] Exactly how do you propose to prove that the Azeris are descendents of the Alans? We know the Ossetians are because of their language, but simply having records of them having been there and conquered the area does not mean that the people were Alans/Scythians or even a majority. You've written a long response, but haven't really proven anything except giving some grand narratives. Where's the Iranian language and the genetic evidence to back your claims? Don't tell me you think West Eurasian is not a group that can be broken down because it can be and it is. The Azeris are closer to the Armenians genetically than to the Persians, at least in the Caucasus. There is just as much evidence to support the view that the Azeris are NOT an Iranian people as there is that they are. No language, no solid genetic link, and conjectural interpretation of history. Come on, you honestly think you're not playing the nationalist card here? Tombseye 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Azeris are mixed Turkic speaking people that sprung from the Turkish invasion points to the fact that they did not just appear. They were and are in the location that was Arran that consisted of Albanians, and Iranian tribes. Furthermore, the fact that the entire area was called Arran, then for some reason was renamed Azerbaijan is another indication that Azeris were not a Turkic speaking group that just lived side by side in the Caucus next to the Sakas. No one said Azeris in the north do not have differences when compared to other Iranians, in fact Iranians are a multi-ethnic, multi lingual group, for example the Kurds in the west have a different language/customs, as do Balochies in the south. What happened to Iranians in Arran intermittingly, in which the Turks invaded their tribes, and the Albanians were driven out, and imposed their language on them via Elite Dominance in which an elite group of soldiers are mixed with the tribal colonies and impose their language on them, does not change their original ancestry. You have again failed to give a single rationale as to where the Azeris came from, why they even appear/are part of Iran, even today, and why even the Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan [Baku] possess a Persian culture? It is astonishing how some choose to skip many important facts, such as when you mention “Azeris are genetically close to Armenians”, you fail to mention Azeris in Iran are genetically close to Iranians there, and that both Iranians and Armenians have a intertwining history of intermarriages that leads to similarities. Armenia is by the way a neighbor to Azerbaijan in one side, and Iran is Azerbaijan`s neighbour to the south. Instead, regrettably people write pages of texts about Germanic peoples in an article about Iranian peoples. I think I’ll stop at that.Zmmz 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for this abdulnr 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Azeris were necessarily a Central Asian Turkic group by bloodlines (in fact I support the theory of language replacement and cultural assimilation), but I am saying that we don't really know that they were an Iranic people as I believe that it is more likely that the Azeris (at least in the north) were a Caucasian people related to the Armenians, Georgians etc. who were Turkified. All this is speculation. Therefore, since we cannot prove that the Azeris are descended primarily from an Iranic people, their inclusion makes no sense other than for the purposes of modern Iran's view of nationalist sentiment. It's quite easy as to why the Azeris are linked to modern Iran, they live in the modern state and Turkic rulers ruled much of Persia for quite some time with Nadir Shah to the Qajars. The fact of the matter is that Iran's case is not even unique vis-a-vis Turkco-Iranian interaction. However, this article is not about Turko-Iranians, but the Iranian peoples and specifically those who can be linked without question to Iranian languages and/or tribes. The Persian speak an Iranian language as do the Pashtuns, Kurds, and Ossetians (who morphologically don't resemble the majority of Iranian peoples and would seem to an observor to be Eastern Europeans). Otherwise, we should include the Uzbeks who have interacted quite a bit with the Tajiks as well as Arabs, Sindhis, Turks of Turkey, and a whole variety of people whom we may believe have some ties to the Iranian peoples. And then how much sense will this article make? None. Tombseye 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye. If we want to keep this article we need to stick to rules otherwise it gives the perfect excuse to people who want to delete it and are saying no such group exists or it is confusing. As Tombsey said if we include Azeri people then why shouldn’t Uzbek, people of India or even Arabs be included? They too have been influenced by Iranian culture. As for being descendant of Iranian people, I personally believe 100% that Azeri people are descendant of ancient Iranian people and no less Iranian than Persians, just look how similar they look, they only lost their language. However we can not prove this and even if we could, people are NOT categorized based on genetics. Therefore we have no choice but to talk about them in a different section as the article does now. But I personally think the theory that Azeri people are descant of ancient Iranian people and their language was replaced at a certain point should be mentioned in this section to explain why they are considered Iranian by so many people even if academically they are not. Gol 04:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable approach. You can explain in the article cultural, genetic and other ties of Iranian people with other people, but of course in a neutral manner with reference to reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Tombseye already added a Ethnic and cultural assimilation section that was supposed to solve this problem. Not sure what to do now. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that section is very well written. I don’t think there’s anything else that could be done. Grandmaster 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the section is fine but I also think that it is a good idea if we mention the theory about Azeri people being descendant of the ancient Iranians. some editors were arguing that Azeri people were Iranian completely until a few hundred years ago when they lost their language. If we mention this in the section, as a possibility, then I don’t think there would be anymore problems or arguments.

Something like this for example:

(Certain theories even suggest that Azeris are descendant of ancient Iranian people who lost their Iranian language after Turkic invasion of Azerbaijan.)Gol 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it is properly sourced. Grandmaster 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the section in question but please make any changes necessary. Thank you Gol 07:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that sounds like a compromise we can work with. Saying that some Azeris, at least in Iran, are believed by some to be descendents of Iranic tribes who were turkified is not all unreasonable since we have that on the Azerbaijani people page which I also worked on. Can we agree on this? Tombseye 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful - because Azeris (At least on the north, were samples were taken) are also descendants of Caucasian people, so I will say "some Azeris" - not all. abdulnr 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

the mugshots

I removed them again. I realize it shows faces of members of various Iranian peoples. It still doesn't show "Iranian peoples", it shows "Iranian people" at best. It's a gimmick. In the interest of encyclopedicity, by all means present images of individuals, preferably in traditional garb or otherwise typical of specific ethnic groups, but label them individually (this is a Pashtun, this is a Persian, this is a Yaghnobi, etc.). Just showing a magazin cover, a model, and the Afghan president and labelling them "Iranian people" is ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think the collage is silly, especially the magazine cover, but I can live with the improved caption. dab (ᛏ) 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't show Iranian peoples, it shows Iranian people". It's basically just the list turned into a picture, and I personally think it enhances the article. You're right, the magazine does look pretty weird, we can fix that if need be. It does seem that the Turkic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples pages don't have collages. —Khoikhoi 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

imho, a map along the lines of Image:Iran peoples.jpg (this particular map is too small, not showing Tajikistan etc.) showing the actual distribution of peoples would be rather more encyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely the magazine pic needs to be changed and I'm not a big fan of the picture myself as it's too similar to the peoples' pages, but hey I'm working with a give and take. I agree that it should show people of a more wide variety AND in native dress or something to denote the variability and two Persians (regardless of their religions is excessive). Also, I agree regarding a map. Tombseye 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

I'm sorry to say this, but in the present way this article should be merged with Iranian languages. There seems to be an agreement among most editors (myself not included) that the premier focus here is the Iranian languages. If that is the case, this article is redundant and unnecessary. I propose to merge it with the article on Iranian languages. What do you think?Shervink 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I disagree. Even if this group is purely linguistic still we have a Germanic languages and Germanic people. Slavic languages and Slavic people. why should it be different for iranian? Gol 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading the article as the Iranian language use is one factor, but the main starting factor. It's also impossible to merge this article as there is too much to burden Iranian languages with. Basically, the impasse is not over its content, but the desire to include a group that is not universally regarded as an Iranian people, the Azeris. That's what this is about. And where do we discuss the tribes of Iranian origin, what happened to them and the various peoples who speak Iranian languages? I agree with Gol's take regarding the Slavs and Germanic groups as well. Tombseye 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of voting 17vs15 in favour of inclusion

The result of voting was 17 votes for inclusion of Iranian Turks and Azeris versus 15 votes who opposed the inclusion.

The aim of the voting was to settle a matter that was no consensus for. Now the numbers are in favour of inclusion and I think we should move forward and do so. Please do not carry on with the debate as it is settled with majority vote.

Thanks for voting everyone. 59.167.25.64 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. See Wikipedia:Consensus. A difference of 2 votes does not make consensus. "Majority" is not how things work at Wikipedia. —Khoikhoi 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the anon voting who could be anyone frankly. Tombseye 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Great offence taken this time Tombseye! What about the users, is not easy to create many users. One can create many many users out of one IP address. But the other way around if far more difficult.

User or not, it is important follow the rules. 203.48.45.194 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are following the rules as there is no consensus. Tombseye 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that about half the people that voted support only have 2 edits or so... —Khoikhoi 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Perhaps the anons will find the newer edits more to their liking though. Tombseye 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have problems with Wikipedia allowing new users and IP addresses? I thought that was Wikipedia's policy to allow such edits (and votes)!!! The fact that you have more edits does not entitle you to proclaim more rigths than anyone eles. 203.48.45.194 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He never claimed he has more rights. The fact of the matter is, there is no consensus to include Azeris. Period. —Khoikhoi 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And I welcome new users, but not new users who come here for the sole purpose of votestacking. —Khoikhoi 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. All of this aside, there's no consensus and as I recall the last time we voted to keep the article as is still led to this vote where miraculously more voters showed up with only a few edits to their name (or the lack thereof). with or without new users, there's no consense anyway. And, following discussions here, I've added some more info. regarding the ancient Azari language that should further appease the dissenters. Tombseye 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And some did not go through every Azeri national user in Wikipedia to campaign for a protest?????? Not that there is anything wrong with informing others about this voting process. But knowing sensitivities well and targeting only those with possible no vote is not so acadmeic, is it?

I agree with no consensus despite majority now.' Thanks for pointing me to the Wikipedia rules. However, you started to pick on voters, ignoring the fact that picking can work both ways. I will stop here and hope you come to your senses and do not go around putting them down or accusing people if you do not like their vote. 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is clearly no consensus here. Is there any potential compromise that a consensus could form around? Bucketsofg✐ 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I proposed one here, but too many people disagreed to it. Tombseye already added a Ethnic and cultural assimilation section of the page, which talks about the Azeris. The problem is, I'm not sure if people understand what the definition is "Iranian peoples" exactly is. A lot of people when voting were saying "I am Azeri and I am a proud Iranian". People don't seem to get that the main criteria for being in this group is to speak an Iranian language, and Azerbaijani is a Turkic language. If people want to change the definition, then they'll have to cite their sources. —Khoikhoi 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that many people just don't get that Iranian peoples doesn't equal Iranians, which was why I suggested (as did tajik) that we replace the term with Iranic peoples even though Iranian peoples is more popular in terms of usage. This would, again, be to appease the people who want this article to reflect, in my opinion, a Persian point of view on matters. Tombseye 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, why do you call this article Iranian peoples, then? Why it is not merged with Iranian languages?

You are defining a term, that is already defined and used in acadmeia and elsewhere. The term includes and has included Iranians either Turks or Lors as Iranian peoples (Mardome Iran), for a thousand years, the least. (Refer to Shahnameh for Turkic Mahmud). It hurts those them to see the term being redefined without an inclusive reference to any academic source and just to please Kurd in Turkey or to please Azeris of Repulic of Azerbaijan.

I think the best compromise is to merge this article to Iranian languges as it is claimed to purely linguistic. If not, Azeris are Iranian peoples and any compromise will be redefining the term "Iranian peoples".

Please take a great note on the fact that there is no parallel to this anywhere. More so, anywhere else, there are two terms distinctly used for linguistic purposes elsewhere, like German and Germani or Turkish and Turkic whereas here, we are using a very definite term "Iranian peoples" for language only. 203.48.45.194 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you don't understand the academic usage. This is not what I want to do, but is simply the way academics define a group. The term Germanic peoples, for example, is not something the German claim as exclusively theirs for example. Iranians or Iranian people (as opposed to peoples) are the people of Iran. It can be confusing to some people, while others who read the article seem to come away understanding its usage. I already explained why it cannot be merged with Iranian languages as that article talks about the languages and not the speakers of those languages. It's really that simple. Do you want to add Azerbaijani to the Iranian languages section just so people don't get confused too? That doesn't make any sense at all. Tombseye 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are all knowing scholar! You tell me where in academia the term "Iranian peoples" are defined as solely about only speakers of "Iranian languages" and not Iranian peoples??????? List your references here, please. 203.48.45.194 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pseudo-scientific and constitute original research. If this merge happens, we will organize our Azeri users to protest against it, since all the potential appeasements have been made. Science defines ethnolinguistic groupes in certain way and we should stick to it, or create new science. THis goes aganist all reasonable judgement.

I guess I understand where these misguided users coming from i.e nationality. Ok- this is about Iranian nationality, so you can create an article there, about all the different nationalities that leave in Iran. Pure and simple - this is what you want. abdulnr 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong here. It is not about nationality. The term "Nationality" did not exist one thousand years ago when Ferdowsi called Mahmoud Shah of Iran. Simple as that. And also, the term "Iranian peoples" has had a meaning. Wikipedia is not here to redefine the term. It is here to just explain. The explanation of such term without mentioning Iranian Turks is like defining people of Earth without listing Americans among them. We need to be very specific about the terms already defined and used. We are not here to redefine terms. 203.48.45.194 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The best title for this article

The best title for the contents of this article is: Speakers of Iranian Languages. The question of merging this article with Iranian languages comes later. If an article with the name "Iranian peoples" should exist, that article should either be directed to Iran demographics or should include all Iranian peoples, includin Azeris. There is no strong evidence the term in 'academia', i.e. in a number of well known university text books or in well established encyclopedias the way described here. It is against Wikipedia policy to invent a new definition for a term that has other implications. The fact that there is no consensus on the issue of Azeris or that the terminology is not that clear not for all users, is a clear indication that the term is not defined as per its known meaning. 203.48.45.194 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Iranian peoples is rarely defined on merely linguistic terms, and the definition presented in this article is in fact an inaccurate invention of some editors. There is nothing wrong with having an article on people who speak Iranian languages, in fact, it is great. But the title should reflect the contents. Iranian peoples is not exactly the same as Speakers of Iranian languages. Thus, the title should be changed to the more accurate one. Shervink 08:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

linguistic groups are not labeled as such. For example there is no speakers of Germanic languages but instead we have Germanic people. same goes for Slavic people and Iranian people is an academic term. So no need to change the title. What we need is to discuss the content of the article to make sure it is accurate. Gol 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because we do not have a word like Germanic people for Iranian languages, we can not use a term such as Iranian peoples and use it the same way as Germanic, Slavic and Turkic peoples are used. We can not invent words such as Iranic because it is against Wikipedia and we can not do research here. But the term Iranian peoples does not mean only "people who speak Iranian languages" as this article claims. It has a broader meaning. That is why this article claims to be an ethno-linguistic article. If pure language, then why not merge with Iranian languages? We really need to source why we use this term for speakers of Iranian languages. Where exactly this term was used first and which university text books and establsihed reliable encylopedias used this. Unfortunately, some of the references used in this article are not so reliable either. One of the most important encyclopedias around is Britanica, it does not define the word the way we have it here. What more can I say!!!! 203.48.45.194 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Azeri's have more to do with Iran and Iranic peoples than they do with Turks

Yes, Azeri's do speak a Turkic language today, that is undeniable. BUt the thing is that Azeri's are ethnic Iranic's who have been Turkicised.

Here are somethings to consider: -Turkish historians noted the language of the region to be Iranic in the 17 century. -The name Azerbaijan is itself Iranic, meaning "land of fire" -Iranians such as Babak fought for Irans independence from Arab rule. And that was before the Turkic migrations into the region, which shows that people of that region were origionally Iranic. -Kurds and Talysh's make up 25% of the population in Iranian Azerbiajan. And many Kurds have been moved from that region during the Perso-Ottoman wars because they were Sunni, and tended to support the Sunni Ottomans. -The Safavids, who are said to be of Azeri origion, considered themselves Iranian. Nadir Shah ahs even written on one of the coins that he had circulated during his reign that he is the King of Iran. Why would a Turk (or Turkic) person consider themselves King of Iran, the Land of Aryans? Because he considered himself Iranian. -Azerbaijani's and Kurds are said to be descendents of the Medeans. Many north Azeri's also acknowledge this.

So in conclusion, Azerbaijan and Azeri's ahve more to do with Iran and Iranic history than they do with Turkic's or Turkic history.Iranian Patriot 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)== collage of different iranian peoples ==

I'd like to point out some major problems with [26]. The second picture from the left is an azeri woman[27] who are Turkic, not Iranic. Plus Catherine Bell's ancestry is half Scottish. I dont mean to play spoilsport, but these are glaring errors on an image that is supposed to represent Iranian peoples. -Kilhan 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cathrine Belle is nevertheless an Iranian, and frankly a very good example of the new-age, mixed Iranians. Also, Azeris are defined as Iranian-Turkic people, by all sources that I know of, so certainly, they are a valuable peice to the Iranian peoples as a whole. They have been Iranian before even the country of Turkey was formed. Also, for example is a Kurdish-Turk to be discriminate against and should not be called a Turk? see all ethnicities/picture of Iranian-Azeris hereThanksZmmz 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Azeris in this article is still being discussed, so unless we include them, we shouldn't have a picture of an Azeri woman. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can't include the Azeris. It seems that we are veering away from the purposes of this article. In fact, after having given a rendition of what the Iranian peoples are, how is it possible to actually trace the Azeris to an Iranic tribe, that is all of them in a manner similar to that of the Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns who all speak Iranian languages? It's all heresay and without the language link any inclusion of other groups is not tenable. Furthermore, culture and history would include a great many people (including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, etc.) and render this article pointless, which it is not. It serves a purpose and explains the movements of the various Iranian peoples as a whole and their modern counterparts. By including other groups to appease one group, in this case the Persians, we open a pandora's box and the inclusion of the Azeris will simply turn this article into a Persian/Iran (the country) page rather than an academic view of the Iranian peoples. Giving them some peripheral mention is one thing, but counting them as an Iranian people is just not logical. Tombseye 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, nor you, nor I can decide which ethnicity belongs where. It just is, and we include that it in the info/articles here; unless, there are some new discoveries for example. Azeris are Iranian people, going back as far as the ethnic Iranian-Turkin dynasty of Safavids centuries ago. Ask any Azeri about their ethnicity, and they`ll reply, Azeri/Irany. It is beyond the scope of regular editors to re-define ethnicities[28] .ThanksZmmz 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my whim as you seem to believe, but that of the majority of academic departments which classify Iranian or Iranic peoples based first and foremost upon their language. Are you not reading the article which clearly states that 'ethnicity' is just one factor? This article is about ONE aspect, while Iranian Turks or Turko-Iranian another factor. Actually, some Azeris, such as those from the country, don't consider themselves 'Iranian' and that's not relevant to the discussion. What's more this article, again if you read it, explains who the ancient tribes were and how some connect to the present peoples as well. Where are the Azeris to fit in here? What shall we put in? That Persians consider them Iranian and thus they must be included? That they aren't actually Turks? You're pushing a POV that is not academic here just as some of the Kurdish editors wanted the classification to be more wide in scope. Everyone's actually coming here with their national perspective and then claiming that this article must conform to their wishes. The Iranian peoples article is not just the Persians. What's more, the article at Bartleby only says that the Azeris are Persian in culture, which is covered in the Turko-Iranian page and is not denied on this page either. Sharing a culture does not make them Iranian or Iranic because they do not speak an Iranian language and cannot be universally traced to ancient Iranian tribes (I already know that most of the Persians seem to want them included as 'Medes' or Scythians) because that's debateable as there is evidence also linking them to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians. So in conclusion, this is not my arbitrary decision, as I am only trying to render this article to conform to consistency (just as the Turkic, Germanic, Slavic articles do) and adhere towards common academic views. Tombseye 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not initiate another edit war here; it is not my comments, rather I provided you with both Columbia Encyclopedia and [29], Encyclopedia BritannicaAzerbaijan in northwestern Iran. Germanic people are irrelevant here, and these disputes are frankly too frivolous, too often. Excuse me, why is there an argument here? Zmmz 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read those articles and they Azeris are a Turkic people. What's your point? Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another pic[30].Zmmz 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are three more pictures[31][32][33]Zmmz 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The last picture seems fine. Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people

It is very upsetting for me as an Iranian that one of the greatest ethnic groups of Iran can not be included but I am afraid, I have to agree with khoikhoi and tombseye. Yes being Iranian/Iranic is much more than just linguistic but language is the most important link. If we add them then it would be fair for Turkish editors to consider adding Kurdish people of turkey to the Turkic people article. After all, I am sure they have adapted some Turkish culture after being part of a Turkish country for so long and the only clear difference that they have with the Turks is their non-Turkic language. same goes for the Iraqi kurds. We can not have double standards. Azeri people are very much part of Iran and Iranian in culture but they do not speak and Iranian language and this is very important. Remember that this article is not about Iran or who did what, who was most loyal, or who has been there the longest; rather it is about an ethnic and linguistic group of people. Almost half of the members of this group don’t even live in Iran. Talking about Azeri people and other Turkish speaking Iranians in a separate section is a great idea but we can not add them to the list.

Sorry for the long message!Gol 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere opinion is that it is better to delete the article, and spread its contents over other articles such as Iranian languages etc., rather than leave it like this and not include the Azeris which are one of the most important ethnic groups of Greater Iran. I am not even an Azeri myself, but I do not know of a single Azeri person - and I know many - who wouldn't identify him/herself first and foremost as Iranian. What's the problem with stating that they are linguistically Turkic, but in most other ways Iranian? Besides, virtually all Azeris of Iran also speak Persian, as do all Iranians for that matter. The problem is the wrong definition on this page. Shervink 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

But you're the one who recently changed the definition in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the Iranian peoples. See User:Grandmaster's comment here. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're merging Iranian citizens with an academic category is the problem. Note that the Hazara, who have a great deal of Mongol ancestry are considered an Iranian people due to their language and culture and yet could be argued as a Turkic-Mongol group who just happen to speak an Iranian language. This article can't be merged into the Iranian languages article BECAUSE that article is specifically about the languages and the various evidentiary traits that classify them as Iranian languages. That article actually needs more work in order to compare grammatical forms, idioms, vocabulary etc., but that's where that article's emphasis is. This article is about the tribes and languages and cultures and how they are linked in various ways. Where else is this to be rendered? Where else can you get a picture of how this group of people came to be and how these languages and peoples were formed? It serves a purpose and there is plenty of room in the Turko-Iranian and Iranian Turkish articles to discuss how Iranian the Azeris are, at least according to some people. This article is not about that aspect. Why the need to keep the Kurds in (when some Kurdish editors felt that it was too orthodox to include them as an Iranian people) and then also incorporate the Azeris who don't even speak an Iranian language? Now at this rate, nationalism has come up with the Pashtun page where some people insist that the Pashtuns are not an Iranic people and that Pashto is not traced to Middle Iranian, but is actually a separate branch of the old Indo-Iranian group. Original research pure and simple that is not substantiated. This case is the same. I'm not saying the Azeris have a great many commonalities with Persians, Kurds, etc., but they are a Turkic people according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Bartley, and all the other sources that I've been given as evidence with the only mention being that they are Persian in culture. At this point, I can only conclude that this has more to do with nationalism than a rational choice to render an encyclopedic article about the Iranian peoples. Note in the article the various discussions of the various groups. The Croatians have a theory that they are not Slavs, but descendents of the Sarmatians so shall we add them? There is a place to discuss other views and then there is a place to explain the most commonly accepted academic perspectives on various peoples. Without that, we have chaos and I won't be able to argue that the Kurds cannot be included as a Turkic people since we will have lost any semblance of consistency. Tombseye 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I think your previous post actually clarifies my point of view to a large extent. I have been saying all along that Iranian languages and Iranian peoples need two articles, not one, because Iranian peoples have a broader meaning than just language. You say the same in the previous post. Considering that as given, there is no reason to exclude Azeris from this article based on linguistic issues, since, as you pointed out, that is not the main concern here. Note also that, as you said yourself, Azeris are Persian in culture, at least in most respects. It goes without saying that the proper definition of this article would give equal weight to language and culture. There is nothing wrong with associating Azeris with Turkic and Iranian/Iranic people simultaneously. In fact, that would be more accurate, simply because they are affiliated with both. Shervink 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think that problem can be addressed at the Turko-Iranian page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding Turko-Iranian culture might be in order as well on both the Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples page to help clarify that these groups are often quite fluid. My main point here is that on this page we are talking about the Iranian peoples of the past who segue into the present and that makes the direct inclusion of the Azeris higly problematic. Tombseye 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is problematic about the inclusion of Azeris. Azeris are very commonly considered Iranian, and they rarely state otherwise themselves. It is the exclusion of Azeris which needs clarification and is problematic, not their inclusion. Shervink 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I think you're taking a Persian perspective rather than an academic one, but here's a compromise then. We can create a sub-section under ethnic groups regarding related and overlapping groups and include a discussion of the Azeris and not list them as an Iranian people as that is just viable within the parameters of this article. In fact it's already kind of started as I've been added information on the subject and the interaction between Persians and Azeris etc. Tombseye 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think it is correct to include Azeris with Iranian people. I have nothing but respect for Iranian and Persian people, they are our brothers and sisters, but the ethnicity is based on the language, and Azeris are Turkic speakers. They belong to Turkic people, despite their close historical and cultural ties with Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"ethnicity is based on the language"? Since when? Also I don't think Azeris have spoken Turkic languages from the begining. Although I doubt there is any historical evidence to support/oppose this -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Azeris belong to the same group as Yakuts and Gagauz, despite Azeris being culturally closer to Persians and not having much in common with many Turkic people. That is because all those people speak Turkic languages. So Azeris don’t belong to Iranian people, insisting on the opposite would not be an academic approach. On the other hand, there are close cultural ties between Azeris and Persian people, but this should be addressed a different way, not by inclusion of Azeris with Iranian people. Maybe a special section should be created for that in the article. Grandmaster 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly they [Azeris] belong to both Iranians and Turks, i.e., they are Iranians-Turks,; not each one individually. Much like a child born to parent from two different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs)

Hmm in a way. They may be called Turk because of their language, but historically speaking Azeris have been as Iranian as much as any other tribe in Iran -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why they should be included within both groups, with a notice on each page to point out the relation to the other group. Shervink 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Genetics

Why is this section even here? Does it say anything in particular about the Iranian peoples, or rather does it simply concerntrate on the Kurds? In case anyone is curious, there is already another biased article regarding the "genetic origins" of the Kurds. I find it curious that these speculative racialist theories are included here as fact, when they are simply the POV of a group of scientists. At any rate, I ask again - does this information belong here considering that it cannot be used to generalize millions upon millions of people spread across the region? I'd really like to know. SouthernComfort 07:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'racialist' at all. National Geographic now regularly employs genetic and genealogical tests to prove or disprove population movements, such as with the Phoenicians and the Mongols. It also gives us insights into cultural assimilation and is actually becoming quite common in academia. How is it biased if we find genetic markers that show Kurdish links to people in the Caucasus? They are still an Iranic people and also have common genes with Iranic people in addition so what's the problem? These tests, once a wider sample has taken place, will give us more insights. The Kurds will remain an Iranic people since they do possess the main criteria, an Iranian language as do the Ossetians and Hazara etc. the problem is that people think of these tests as a litmus test for race when they should be looking at the common genetic markers that show links between various peoples and to what degree. The question of cultural assimilation shows that the Azeris, who are bitter adversaries of the Armenians, are actually closely related to them. I'm more in favor of adding information than deleting it at any rate. If you have information or think the findings are controversial and can word it well, then add what you can. Tombseye 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about the Iranian peoples in general and using a genetic study that focuses only on one group to make generalizations about the whole is POV. If you have genetic studies that compare similarities/differences between Iranian/Iranic populations, that's one thing. But as it is the section is rather speculative and this is unnecessary. As such, I suggest including only the first study since it does mention specific populations (according to the article: "Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks") - I haven't read the whole article, but it seems, however, that they only sampled populations from Iran. More details from that article could be incorporated here, i.e. how many were sampled, what regions were they from, etc. The second source appears to focus only on Kurds from Iraq (correct me I'm wrong). Again, there is already another article with this same exact information. My suggestion is to only include sources which collectively compare Iranian populations, rather than focus on a single group. SouthernComfort 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid argument. Actually, I didn't particularly want the Kurdish study myself, but then there are a lot of things that I don't want done that people insist upon for their own reasons. It's not easy since everyone is a critic and everyone wants something to be placed in a way that may make no sense. Now on the Pashtun page we have people who insist that the Pashtuns are not Iranic at all. It's a never-ending thing on wikipedia. Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with taking out the studies that don't talk about all the Iranian peoples and whatever you have in mind sounds okay to me. Tombseye 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When Iranians started called themselves Iranians

This might be not relevant to the topics above. But interesting to know the answer if someone has a source for it. Might be an idea to put the answer in ethymology section here or in Iran.

We know for sure that Iran and Iranians widely called themselves so in times of Samanids and Ghaznavid dynasties since the term was extensively used in Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. We also know that different versions of the term is used in some Avestan text but not sure if those texts were widely used due to class system in Sassanid empire. Also if the term is used in tehr same context.

However, in the pre-Islamic times, I am not sure. Most Arab texts refer to Sassanid Iranians as Persians (فارسي) or Ajams (عجمي) and earlier times Greeks also used their equivalent of Persians. I wonder if the term was used for the first time by Iranians after Islamic era and possibly during Samanids. Persian Magi 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is since Iran means, Land of Aryans, and archeological evidence show that Cuneiforms indicate Darius I stated he was the King of Land of Aryans, then it may very well go back to Achaemenid era; 2500 years or so ago.Zmmz 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it goes back to the Achaemenids. See Behistun inscription. It was at least used by the Sassanids as the name of their empire (Eranshahr), but it's not clear how widespread it was otherwise. Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear. Was it used in the Shahnameh? My English ebook version of Firdausi doesn't have one Aryan in it, though that's hardly conclusive evidence. I also looked for noble or nobles, and got citations like, "the king and his nobles", which don't seem to imply an ethnic cognomen. What did people living in the area that is now Iran call themselves between 850 and 1935? Does anyone have any cites? Zora 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True, Shahnameh does not mention Arya. But, if you look at [Persian text] of Shahnameh you find many many mentions of the term Iran there which implicitly means Aryans. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, you're right, I was thinking of Aryan, not of Iran as Iran versus Turan. So we get a country, or an empire name (Eran, Iran), but not the name of a people. Fits with Garthwaite's thesis that the realm was constituted by the ruler, not by the people? [34] It's us moderns who put the "people" first. Zora 07:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Whether or not it was used between the Arab conquest and 1935 is not clear." Purely your opinion. Provide evidence that there is no "clarity." SouthernComfort 05:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking -- are there any cites that prove it was used? I haven't seen any such use of "Aryan" in the books I've read on those centures, but my reading is hit or miss, in English. If it's so common and well-attested, surely there would be some quotes that would show its existence? Zora 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard and read anywhere in Iranain sources the term "Aryan" being using before modern Iranian literature. I am not sure even if our poets and writers knew that Iran meant Persians, Meds etc. Remember Persepolis was called "Takhte-Jamshid" since no one knew it was Achamenid palace. Persian Magi 06:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Darius in Behistun inscription said: "I, Darius, great king, king of kings, king in Pars, King of countries, Son of Vishtasp, grandson of Arsham the Achamenid" and did not mention Aryans. Please refere to the complete text and its translation of Behistun inscription here. I went through the whole document and found no such a mention of Iran or Aryans. Even the ending mentions that he made another Cuneiforms with help of Ahuramazda where the writer interprets that Cuneiform as Aryan Cuneiform. So even there no mention of Arya by Darius himself! Lots of mentions of Pars and Parsi, however. And indeed lots of bragging even about gruesome details of punishments of defeated; ear cutting, eye poking etc.; well Darius was like any other empror with his own version of brutalities and not a saint. Persian Magi 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it! I was wrong on the source (it's the Naqsh-i-Rustam, not the Behistun), but the inscription says:

2. (8-15.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. [35]

I would also think that claiming to be divinely ordained to rule by Ahura Mazda entails Zoroastrianism which means that the historical accounts from those scriptures, which do mention Aryans, would be relevant. Zora 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Land of Aryans"

The term Īrān in Modern Persian comes from the Middle Persian term Ērān which in turn comes from the Old Persian term ariya-. In the 19th century the term ariya- was "discovered" by archeologists and linguists studying various Iranian texts - and it was later incorporated into Modern Persian with a very limited usage (usually having to do with the history of Iran, race, and nationalism). So, to make a long story short, you cannot find any mention of the exact word "Arya" or "Aryan" in any Persian text between 300AD-1800AD. You can find it after and before, but not in between.

The term Ērān in MP, however, is a cognate of the OP ariya-. It's sad to see so many people going around saying "Iran means 'Land of Aryans'". How can a four-letter word mean "Land of Aryans"??? Iran, Eran, and ariya are altimately the same word: *arya- (the asterik means it's reconstructed). This "land of Aryans" business is probably coming from the other term Ērānšahr (MP pron.: airaan-shahr) which is usually translated "land of Iran" or "land of Iranians". But Iran by itself doesn't really mean anything. If you stretch it far enough you can say it means "noble", but I don't know where this "land of Aryans" nonsense is coming from. Probably some ultra-nationalist thing. Heh. Aucaman^Talk 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you said its nonsense, did you read the sources? How can you say Iran by itself doesn't mean anything when you have, your self, in the same paragraph, described where it comes from?!!! I can stretch it even further for you, Airyanem Vaejah, Aryana, Eranvej, Iran Shahr, Aryanam and Iran. It's always been pretty much the same title, but language has changed through out the time. It's sad to see a self pro-claimed "Iranian" denying his Aryan heritage - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We know that the word was used by the Achaemenids to describe a people, and by the Sassanids (and by Firdausi in writing the history of the Sassanids) to describe a land ... but it's not clear what words were used for realms and peoples between the Sassanids and the Pahlavis. I'm starting to suspect that it was discontinuous, but I could well be wrong. Instead of just stating "it's so", surely some cites could be found.

Ah, just found one reference. The Garthwaite first chapter says that "Iran was the term commonly used in Iran and by Iranians, except from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries." So he's saying it's discontinuous. Thirteenth century -- that would be after the Mongol invasions. Dang, I wish I had his book, I could turn to that chapter. Zora 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures: vote please

About the picture, I like the current one but it might be a good idea to include some people who are NOT Iranians citizens. This way it would clearly, at first look, show the readers that this category has nothing to do with Iranian citizens. Hamid Karzai is a very good choice but all the other people are from inside the borders of Iran and more than likely Iranian citizens or children of Iranian citizens. Maybe a Kurdish citizen of Turkey or a Tajik person would be a good idea. Gol 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The new picture now has a Persian Jewish guy from Israel that is still Iran-specific. I'd suggest, at the most 2 people from Iran, 1 Afghan, 1 Kurd, and someone from one of the other groups such as a Tajik, Baluch, Ossetian etc. Tombseye 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture really needs more diversity though. It's too Iranian/Persian specific and the picture of the Shaul Mofaz seems pointless as the section isn't about Persian Jews who are an Iranian people since they speak Persian so there is no cultural assimilation so that is the wrong place for that picture and there really isn't room anywhere for it on this page. The collage should include more diversity with a Kurd and a Tajik at least to be included. Persian-Canadian isn't really different from Persian for example. Tombseye 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before, and in the discussion you said the pic is fine, submit it. It is extremely difficult to get high quality, unique pics, and the copyright permissions from creators of the pics, and I have done so. As a compromise we can replace the Gilaki woman with a Kurd, but in text only, such that the pic is only a model representing generically Iranian peoples. So, she is actually representing a Kurd. In fact, the designer himself states, “My work is always inspired from my culture: Googoosh, Qajars, Kurds, Qashqais, as well as revolutionaries”, see pic description by the designer here. You can view his web site. And, I already added a pic of a Tajik. Also, Persian Jews, are as Iranian as anybody else.Zmmz 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with it, but this Pashtun guy who look at this article seemed to take offense to the page as it seems to be Persian top heavy. The Israeli guy is a Persian ethnically so it's pointless to have him and he's in the wrong section as he belongs in the religion section, but frankly the article is now too cluttered with pictures. The collage could be okay ethnic diversity, but detracts from the article at the top in my opinion and belongs in the place of the Tajik guy who should be added to your collage instead. The woman in traditional dress looks great under the culture section though and is appropriate to the section. Don't just add pictures to fill up space as that will make this article look less than appealing. Your collage at the top now has 4 Persians and 1 Pashtun. How is that representative? And then there is a Tajik, an eastern Persian basically and then another Persian from Israel. Do you not think that there are far too many Persians on this page?! Tombseye 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don’t. There is now, a Persian, a Kurd, a Tajik, Canadian-Iranian, an Afghan/Pashtun, and a Persian Jew. And, frankly I think I breathed life into the article with pics, as it was boringly only texts. The colleague belongs at the top, and should not be buried down there. Just the intro saying Iranian peoples is relevant enough to keep it up there. Please let’s have some other opinions here.Zmmz 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, tell the Pashtun guy, if he is so concerned with Iranian peoples, which I respect, then he could start with stating Pashtun are Iranian peoples in the intro of that article, instead of, keep erasing it there. Although, I have not tried to, nor want to mediate that article.Zmmz 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's have some more opinions on the subject actually. I've dealt with the Pashtun guy as best as I could. This page actually has 5 Persians (the boy at the top and the Iranian Canadian), the Persian woman in the cultural dress, and 2 Israelis of Persian origin. That's very disproportionate and I'm not alone in thinking so I don't think. This article is not People magazine is not meant to dazzle readers with pictures of people. It's meant to be an encyclopedic article and the pictures should be relevant to the sections and not simply pictures for hte sake of pictures. If one wanted to be fair, keep 1 picture of a Persian in the collage and 1 of the Persian woman in the cultural section. That's plenty. The collage should be 1 Persian, 1 Kurd, 1 Pashtun, 1 Baluchi or Ossetian, and 1 Tajik to be fair. I'm starting to think you're turning this page into a Persian page rather than a page about the Iranian peoples as a whole. Hope I'm wrong about that. Tombseye 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a collage, just one pic next to a section on each ethnicity and/or linguistic group claimed. Zora 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, a collage is needed for the introduction. --ManiF 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on collage

The pic contains one Persian, one Kurd, an Afghan/Pashtun, a diaspora Canadian-Iranian, and a Persian Jew who are as Iranian as anybody else. Also remember it is very hard to get copyrights to pics from creators, as I have done, which means the pic would not be deleted by Wiki. I think the pics breath life into the article, as Wiki as an encyclopedia has the advantage of having these pics placed in articles, so they do matter.

Keep-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep- I think the current picture is fine. No need to make it too diverse. You can not include all. By the way, Persians are the prominent part of Iranian peoples. So no problem in including more of them, in my opinion. Would have loved one Iranian Azeri/Turk in it too. But... Persian Magi 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change to reflect diversity. Persians comrpise about 1/4 of the Iranian peoples so, proportionally they should be 1/4 represented on this page. Otherwise, as we have seen already, other Iranian peoples and laypersons will think, wrongly, that Iranian peoples is a reference to the Persians or citizens of Iran only. Definitely, no Azeris as then frankly I personally will let the Turkish folks know that they can list Kurds as a Turkic people and I'm done with this page myself as clearly nationalism will have won over neutral academia. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Change, per Tombseye.Heja Helweda 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Tajikistan President picture in the `Ethnic diversity` section

Keep- There is already a picture of a model in the collague, and I think because of the President`s status, his picture is a better fit. Also, his futures, are a better indication how vastly different Iranian peoples look from each other.Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Integrate into Collage or Delete. Any visuals should be relevant to the article and the sections. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and instead replace with Hammasa Kohistani. Tajik 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section

Delete-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete Persian Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the Iranian peoples, while the Kurds, Pashtuns, and others are as large or almost as large as the Persians. Completely not fair and irrelevant to the section it is placed in. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on adding a famous Baloch, Ossetian, Talysh, or Hazara to the page

• Include - I think we should only have an image of 1 Persian, to show the diversity in Iranian peoples is not limited to just Persians. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Include - I am already working on that, but let`s concentrate on the colleague and others.Zmmz 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly favor including-I agree with Khoikhoi here as there is not enough diversity of the Iranian peoples shown here and the pictures should relevant and not for decorative purposes. Tombseye 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I was talking about the collage. Nice work anyhow. :) —Khoikhoi 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then, stop the confusion please guys and vote under the correct heading; stating your concerns there. It is extremely hard to get copyrights for these pics, then make them, then somebody else turns around and says, “Oh, why did you add the vendor with a beard and a turban? ”; somebody says , “Don’t use Azeris, we are Azeri, fighting for our freedom, we are not Iranians, we need our rights back”, one guy says; “WHY ARE YOU PUTTING JEWS THERE?”; another guy says, “Add one of those Persians with blue eyes and blond hair”. Then there is this lovely guy who keeps erasing the fact that Pashtuns are Iranian people, but complains that there are no Pashtun pictures in an articl named Iranian peoples, which actually is incorrect because President Karzai is in fact, a Pashtun, and blah blah blah.....

I am really getting tired of all this nagging: every separatists, political group attacking these articles, every anti-nationalist, pro this or pro that; every nationalist with an agenda and a computer....etc….etc...Etc. Make-up your minds please, [vote], and if kept fine; if not, these are my pics, I have the rights for them, and I will delete them. These articles are a waste of precious time. So, once again, vote under the right section, and let` s get it over with please.Zmmz 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stay calm man. I understand your frustration, I know how it feels. I can make the image if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

After all my hard work, now you can make the image? OK. Wait in line, because ManiF is going to ask somebody to make his version, then yours will be deleted after a week, then some anti-nationalist [person] (you know who), is going to come and refute his version, and it goes on, and on. I don`t care anymore, you guys duke-it-out. BTW, thanks for voting in the other sections, and not as usual elongating these discussions. Good job guys.Zmmz 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on the Hazara Girl picture

• Keep-Zmmz 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on keeping cartoon picture such as the `Kurdish Sultan`, or replace them with real pictures

• Delete- As such it is about Iranian peoples, and pictures of real people are more appropriate.Zmmz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep-I don't think you understand what this article is about. It is about Iranic peoples past and present and from all over the Iranic world and that is not a cartoon, but a picture from the 12th century (close to Saladin's time). If another picture of Saladin is preferred, then fine. In addition, Durrani is an important Afghan figure as well. These pictures are far more relevant (and appropriate for the sections that they were placed in) then your pictures of random people placed throughout the page. This is not an ethnic survey article and pictures of real people can be used, but sparingly. Again, compare to Germanic peoples and Slavic peoples and you'll see what these types of articles, in the academic sense are meant for. The history section is about historical figures. What do you propose to put in instead, another picture of a Persian of today? Save that for the Persian people page or Iranian demographics. Tombseye 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurds of Turkey and Iranian Turks!!!

I see this comparison often used in arguments against including Iranian Turks here. This comparison is completely out of relevance here. Turkic people in Iran are Iranians and have been so through history of Iran from the past to present. Can you name one Kurdish ruler in Turkey in their history? Where is the Kurdish infleuence on historical Turkey or Othomans? Look at the history of Iran, Turkic Iranians ruled Iran through anciant times and modern Iran as Iranians. The numerous Iranian Turkic speaking scholars through history and modern times are anotehr indication of how Iranian they were. We are not talking linguistic groups here. If we do please refer to Iranian languages.

I think this comparison is completely un-academic and irevalent. I am sure people who are editing the pages relevant to modern Turkey and Turkic people have enough academic understanding not to do this comparsion. So lets not worry about them.

203.48.45.194 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you!

We never voted on inclusion of Iranian Turks who are mainly Azeris here in the list. I am strongly for inclussion of Azeris here.

I asked voters to reconsider a few options such as merging the article or changing the name to address the above but they were narrowly voted out.

However, the positive outcome of the discussions followed the voting was the inclussion of Iranic term and a wording to clear that a bit.

At this stage, due to the great contents of the article and with the above compromises, I am happy to keep it as is. But I would have loved to be able to convince editors to include Iranian Turks and not to be scared of what goes on other pages.

Persian Magi 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only rational acceptable to not include Iranian Turkic speaking people in the list is only linguistics and this article claims not to be solely about linguistics. I do not think any compromise is acceptable. 59.167.26.16 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, linguistics is the central criteria IN ADDITION to other factors. We already voted and majority rules so it is acceptable. As for the Kurds in Turkey, well actually many famous Turks, including leaders, have been Kurds and the cultures have clearly blurred together. If Azeris are going to be included here, then I see no reason why Kurds can't be considered "Mountain Turks" as the Turkish govt. used to refer to them as. You're all projecting modern Iranian/Persian nationalism in the place of rational neutrality. And as Persian Magi has correctly stated, we have done a lot to address the matter without directly incorporating the Azeris. Tombseye 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, you are missing the point here. No one have ever and could assume Shah Ismail as a non Iranian ruler of Iran and that is 500 years ago. Same goes with many other Iranian Turks through history. But Kurds in Turkey are called by the government and in modern times as mountain Turks!!! How do you compare these two situations???? It is not government of Iran calling someone Iranian. It is Ferdowsi calling Turkic Sultan Mahmood, king of Iran zamin, 1000 years ago. How can you even compare these two situations???? You tell me how that is rational neutrality to make such comparison? 203.48.45.194 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in addition, the Kurds have interacted with Turkic tribes for centuries and in Turkey their cultures often blend together in ways similar to the Persian-Azeri situation. The reality is that the Iranic and Turkic peoples diverge starting with language, but do share cultures and often bloodlines. However, that is something for the Turko-Iranian article and not this article which is about the Iranic peoples who must, first and foremost, speak an Iranian language which clearly the Kurds do and the Azeris do not. Also, references to peoples as "IRanian" is not relevant because Ferdowsi, for example would not have included the Pashtuns or the Ossetians as Iranians. He was talking about a culture centered in Persian-speaking regions, which had been conquered by Turks, many of whom were adopting or had adopted the Persian culture and language. The meanings of Iranian are obviously many and varied. For the purposes of this article, we are talking about the academic term regarding Iranian peoples who speak Iranian languages past and present. The other groups who have close ties are thus outside the parameters of this article. If you'll note, the history and origins sections that I wrote discuss the Iranian peoples of history. Ferdowsi would not particularly know or acknowledge the Sarmatians as an Iranian people, whereas for this article we are. Tombseye 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranians and Turks?

The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks who are often considered a closely related cultural group to Iranian peoples throughout history and in modern times.

What does this sentence mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togrol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2006.

Well, that was written to placate some folks who wanted the Azeris to be mentioned in some capacity and their status clarified as a closely related cultural group. It would properly refer to all non-Iranic citizens of Iran of course in addition to Turks. Tombseye 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The main or maybe the only reason to use the term IraniC is to avoid confusion with non-Iranian citizens. It has nothing to do with Turks or other peoples. The current way is too biased and should be corrected. Togrol 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term Iranic was meant to be applied to people who speak Iranic languages first and foremost and then have some other common linkages to varying degrees. Thus, Afghans who are Pashtun and Tajik are Iranic, whereas Uzbeks aren't. Also though, it is meant to avoid confusion with the term Iranians which is popularly used to describe all Iranians who include non-Iranic peoples such as Arabs and Turks. Hope that helps. Tombseye 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are Iranians

This article is not about linguistics alone, nor is linguistics its main point. Linguistic and cultural factors should be considered when classifying people, both to the same extent. Even if you want to give the preference to one of them, it should definitely be culture rather than language. We speak of the Iranian cultural continent, not the linguistic continent. Azeris are just as Iranian as other Iranians, and I do not mean citizenship of modern Iran when I use that word. With the same reasoning, Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are Iranian people. No compromise on these points is acceptable here, as it would severely reduce the validity of the article. Also, the term Iranic is being taken too seriously. The term is not common in academia, although used sometimes. Making it the main terminology of choice, by using it throughout Wikipedia, is thus original research. Wikipedia cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term Iranian. Shervink 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

You know then that there should be no problem with excluding the Kurds then. I mean since this article is turning into a Persian nationalist front article rather than an article about the Iranic peoples. Which ancient Iranic tribe are the Azeris to be linked to? What of their ties to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians and others? The Iranian peoples start with their language commonalities and then with other factors IN ADDITION. The Iranian languages article is about the languages and not the peoples who speak them. It's a very easy and clear distinction. And besides which we voted and most people favor keeping the article as is. You can't make unilateral decisions and go against the majority. Tombseye 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting to include Iranian Turkic speaking groups here

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Khoikhoi 01:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Majority" doesn't make any difference. See Wikipedia:Consensus. —Khoikhoi 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ends 1am (GMT) 8th May 2006

(I put a deadline so that this does not go forever... hope everyone agrees... Persian Magi 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I do not think we had this voting before. (The voting previously was for change of the name of the article etc. was to address this issue but not to include Azeris). Hope this will close the issue once for good.

For Inclusion

1. Strong support - I am a proud Azeri Iranian. If myself and the vast majority of Azeris from and near Iran consider ourselves Iranian, surely this should be accepted as the norm? I dont understand this debate
2. 59.167.0.169 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Iranian Turkic peoples were part of Iranian peoples through history and they are too importan in Iranian history and modern Iran to be excluded. I can not think of any comparison among other peoples.
3. Strong support - There is more to be "Iranian peoples" than the language. There is a definate cultural and historical component. Azeris are as much Iranian as any other Iranian tribe. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support - The term "Iranian peoples" has more to it than linguistic sense. Azeris and other Iranian Turks have been Iranians since historical ages as Iranians. It was a surprise that they were not included from the very begining. This has nothing to do with demographics of modern Iran by the way. 203.48.45.194 09:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support - I have been always advocate of this. No doubt Iranian Turks have been a vitat part of Iranian peoples since anciant history. Persian Magi 10:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support - Iranian turks have not been around in ancient history as stated above, but they have been part of iran for the last 800 years at least. They have been mixed with persians and other iranians, they are no longer turks, they are iranian turks. --Darkred 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support - It is better to include than to exclude. Kirbytime 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support - The main emphasis of this article is not language. We have an article on Iranian languages for that issue. This article is about people who are culturally Iranian, which is a very wide spectrum of people. We should clarify the cultural emphasis at the beginning of the article, and include all culturally Iranian people, including Azeris. Since this article in its current form is an article about language, if Azeris are not included at the end of this voting, I would suggest merging this article with Iranian languages. An article on Iranian people only makes sense if it really deals with people. Having a name for an article which has nothing to do with its contents, which is the case right now, is a wrong thing to do. Either merge this article with Iranian languages (if your emphasis is language), or accept that the emphasis is culture and include all Iranian groups. Please look at these as well:[36][37][38].Shervink 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
9. Strong support I did not know that it was possible to assume they were not Iranian peoples!!! Gharib Ghorbati 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. Well, enough said by others. I am convinced. By the way, I am new here. Took me a while to figure out I had to actually edit this to vote. Babak Kamkar 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support - I think what most people forget is that there were people called azeri's in iran prior to the turkic invasion, so the term is not a turkic term azarbaijan has been in existence long before the turks came. we shouldn't allow pan-turkism to decide for us here. George McFly 11:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC-5) :Just read what Mr George McFly said here: That there were people called the Azeris prior to the turkic invation. What more needs to be said. --Darkred 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong support - as per [39].Zmmz 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support - Too important not to be included. Nokhodi 06:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - Have to be included.
15. Strong Support - I can't beleive this has to be voted on, are there any Iranian Azari's who don't support this? Zkovic 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - How could they not be Iranian Gymkata 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - they're iranian, pure and simple Rugsnotbombs 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - They are Iranian!

Against Inclusion

1. Strong opposition-for reasons already stated, the inclusion of Turkic peoples or Arabs etc. will dilute the article and make any classification pointless. Instead Turko-Iranian should be developed as a platform for discussing the cultural overlap between Turkic and Iranic peoples across the board. Lastly, the article already now discusses the issue, whereas incorporating the Azeris (in the history and other sections) would be both problematic, subjective, and largely untenable since there is no Iranic ancient tribe that they can be linked to with certainty. Tombseye 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong opposition This has to be a ambitious Pan-Iranian joke. If this goes ahead, Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Georgians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Arabs, Serbs and other former Ottoman nationalities should be grouped together since they all have had a common history and their cultures overlap. Just think of the other kind of stuff we can come up with, Ethiopians being related to Italians, North african Arabs being related to the French, Filipinos to the Spanish:) --Kilhan 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use foul language. Iranian Turks are a unique situation. Have you seen an Ethiopian dynasty ruling Italy and calling themselves Roman kings? Are they living in Italy since dawn of time? Then, yes you can include Ethiopians as Italians. 203.48.45.194 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose per reasons above. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose This is simply absurd and has nothing to do with scientific approach. It is well known that Azeris are Turkic people, check any encyclopedia. With all due respect to Iranian people Azerbaijanis are not one of them, and it is a well known fact. Grandmaster 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is an overlap between the two category of peoples. There are some Iranian peoples who are also Turkic. I am not sure where the problem is there? By the way we are not trying to conquer anything here. We are trying to explain what 'Iranian peoples', mean. Does that mean only speakers of Iranian languages, then fine merge this article with Iranian languages and all done. But this article talks about Iranian peoples and Turks of Iran are and have been Iranian peoples since history. 203.48.45.194 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose While Azeris (as well as the majority in Iraq, Turkmenistan, or even Turkey) may be Iranian by origin [40] (if you take a look at that map, you'll see that genetically Azeris are almost totally "Western Eurasian" and thus deffinitly not Turkic by heritage) , they are clearly Turkic in language. After all, this article classifies Hazaras as "Iranic people", although the Hazaras are mostly Turco-Mongol by origin. Tajik 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose For all reasons above. Groups are defined by language and a shared culture and not by nebulous hypothesis of ancestry . While no doubt Azeris share the great heritage of Iranian civilizations, so are Ottomans and Uzbeqs. One may talk in lands of Islam of Turkish-Persian realm, as opposed to Arabian one in North Africa and Levant. This is a cultural entity and not ethnic one. abdulnr 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose. More nonsense. Since when do we "vote" over factual accuracy disputes? This article is supposed to be about the speakers of Iranian languages. The Azeris don't speak an Iranian language. Aucaman^Talk 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. Why is this article not merged with Iranian languages if this article is about language only??? If this is not only linguistics and includes culture etc. then why not include Azeris???

1. Strongly oppose. This claim is simply ridiculous.. --Tabib 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. This claim is simply absurd and ridiculous, now Persians are telling Azeris who they are. Every encyclopedia will tell you Azeris are Turkic people. Baku87 13:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Why are you taking too personally. It is not Persians. I am as Turkic as you are. But that does not mean I am not an Iranian. My ancessetors ruled Iran as Iran and Iranians. Every piece of Iran has a Turkic finger print on it. We have been one people since history. No one claiming anything about current nationals of Republic of Azerbaijan or Iran. This is all about history. And if you read your history books well. Iranian Turks were Iranians since they were mentioned in history 1000 years ago. 203.48.45.194 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Iranian turks have been in iran for around 1000 years, do you really think they would still be turks after all that time? Persians are not pure persian either, they too have been mixed alot with other iranians, so if you want to exclude azeris then you would have to exclude all other iranian people. You have to understand that Azeris are not turks, they are iranian turks. It is the fact that they are iranian that makes them Azeris, otherwise they could just as well be called turks and be joined with turkey. Persians are not telling them who they are, it is they that consider themselfs and are iranian. Persians have ruled them as much as they have, there are as much persian finger print on turkic places and people in iran as the other way around. We are not talking about one group be superior the other here, we are talking about brotherhood. --Darkred 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I do not see any cultural uniformity between Iranian Turks, Azerbaijanis in particular and other Iranians. They are close- of course, any people living this close, this long would influence each other- but still culturully distinct. --TimBits 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Tombseye.Heja Helweda 23:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - this must be a joke--Aldux 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Telex 17:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I very much respect the Iranian nation. I also respect a Turkish nation. So, please no accusations. This is a mere factual accuracy issue. Different linruistic groups are a fact here. --Irpen 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose Also someone needs to format the autonumbering and the headings here... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed compromise

How about we include a sub-section of the list of Iranian peoples called "considered Iranians culturally but not linguistically"? That sounds pretty fair to me. —Khoikhoi 18:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree That's a good idea. That way, we can list up all peoples that have been influenced by Iranians and not only the Azeris (who, btw, are not as much "Iranian" as Uzbeks). Tajik 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm, well if we list all the ethnic groups influenced by Iranians, the list would get too large. Let's go with Azeris for now. —Khoikhoi 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - Only focusing on Azeris (who are not as much "Iranian" as Uzbeks) won't solve the problem. This article is about the ethno-linguistic group of "Iranian peoples", meaning those who share common heritage, history, culture and related languages. While Azeris may be "Iranic" or "Indo-European" by their genetic heritage and to some extent even in their culture, they are not Iranian in language. Uzbeks, for example, have even an "Iranized" language: their language is not typical Turkic: it contains even grammatical elements of Persians and other Iranian languages. This article only focuses on the ethnic groups living in Iran, while it totally ignores Turkic peoples in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, like the Chahar Aimaq for example. Tajik 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree* It is a great idea. We should just avoid sounding too political and make it neutral as in stating the fact that e.g. "..Iranian culture has been influential in the central Asia, by Turko-Iranian people such as Uzbeks, etc..." -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - in case no consensus occurs above or inclusion does not succeed. However, I do not think any other group should be included than Iranian Turks. The case of Iranian Turks and Iranian Azeris is really unique. It is like Sun and other stars. Sun is a star but not every other star is our Sun. So I do 'not' think we can include Uzbecks, Arabs etc. dedicating a part to Iranian Turks and Azeris is quite necessary if no inclusion occurs. Persian Magi 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - If inclusion does not go ahead, this is the least we can do to reflect the importance of Azeris as a part of Iranian peoples. Gharib Ghorbati 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - As i stated above azeris and other iranian turks are not turks they are as much iranian as the persians.

They have been mixed with all other iranian ethnic groups, thus they are no longer turks and should be included in the list.

I know this because i am one of them, half persian half turkic(not azeri). --Darkred 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree - why are you singling out Azeris? Either you include Uzbeks, Afgans, Indian Muslims and Turks of Turkey who were influenced by Persian culture or do not create such a subsection. abdulnr 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't agree - I agree with abdulnr. Either you make a complete list or don’t make any at all. Grandmaster 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree I think it is necessary to include Iranian Turks (please note Azeris are not all Iranian Turks) as a group here. Please also note we are not trying to redefine 'Iranian peoples' here. This term has been used for all Iranian Turks, including Azeris during history. Please note the two way influence and its importance of Iranian Turks. We do not have Arabs claiming as Iranian Kings or Ozbecks for that matter. The Iran-ness of Iranian Turks had not been even questioned until when Soviet emergence and formation of Azerbaijan Republic. If someone knows of any source on the contrary, please bring it on here. 203.48.45.194 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing citizenship with ethnicity. These are different things. This page discusses ethnicity only. Grandmaster 05:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are mixing ethnicity of turks with Azeris. Azeris and other iranian turks are in fact ethnic Iranians, having been mixed with Persians and other ancient Iranian groups. --Darkred 06:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Darkred. Also I specifically mentioned history in my comments to avoid confusion with citizenship. Citizenship is a new concept, virtually. Iranian Turks are called Iranians since historical times of Ghaznavid, when there was no passports around, so to speak. 203.48.45.194 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree I agree with abdulnr. Baku87 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87
• I don't agree - as per [41].Zmmz 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop inventing terms, no original research is allowed here. Show me a reliable source claiming that Azeris are not Turkic people. See Britannica, for example:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [42] Grandmaster 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are the one inventing things. When did we say azeris are not turkic people? We are saying they are turkic iranian, which includes them as iranian people. --Darkred 09:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember Turkic is not Turkish, Turkish only refers to people from Turkey --Darkred 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, is there such ethnicity as Turkic-Iranian? I never heard of it. Grandmaster 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and its name is Azeri, Qashqai and the rest of the iranian-turkic groups. --Darkred 10:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Can you give us a quote from some reliable source to prove that there’s an ethnicity called Turkic-Iranian? Azeris are either Turkic or Iranian, they can’t be both. Now an excepted academic view is that they are Turkic, if you have a reliable source proving otherwise, you can provide it here. Grandmaster 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, have a look at Encyclopaedia Iranica by the reknown scholar Ehsan Yarshater. There are plenty of Iranian Turkic groups since history. Look for Afshars, for example.

One more point, when you heard people call Lurs, as Lur-Iranian or Gilaki-Iranians or Persian-Iranian? When it is so obvious that Azeris and other Turkic groups were Iranians, then no one uses that prefix. Hope this helps. 203.48.45.194 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This not a quote. The Iranica website is big, I asked for a quote, stating that Azerbaijanis are one of Iranian people. For example I quoted Britannica, and I cited a paragraph and provided a link so that you could check the authenticity of the quote. That’s the way it’s done. You need to quote an authoritative source stating that Azerbaijanis are one of Iranian people. If that’s not done, any user has a right to remove an unsourced material. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. According to the rules, any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. Bear that in mind. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Now where does it say that Azerbaijanis belong to Iranian people? A proper quote, please. Grandmaster 08:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this [43]. The website contains many scholarly articles, and is a reliable one since it is maintained by a university research group. You will find that they consider Azeris as Iranians throughout their pages. Also, it is a misconception that Azeris living outside Iran are actually Azeris. In fact, they are Arranis, and the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan has been motivated politically. Its correct name would be Arran [44]. Shervink 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Very nice, an article called “Language of Azeri People and Pan-Turkism”. Man, do you really want me to take this seriously? How about citing an authoritative academic source? I for example cited Britannica, can you cite a reliable, authoritative source? Grandmaster 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcastic tone is not at all appreciated, and you should change it if you want to have a serious conversation. The source conforms with all Wikipedia guidelines, and its contents are directly relevant here. Shervink 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

If you want a serious conversation, you should cite a serious source. Try referring to something written outside of Iran and not poisoned by chauvinist propaganda of the Iranian regime. Find a neutral authoritative source backing up your claims. Otherwise this voting is irrelevant and anyone has a right to remove information lacking a source. You still don’t understand what a reliable source is. Grandmaster 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, this is the last time I'm going to turn a blind eye on your personal insults. The source is provided on a University of London website. The entire work there is academic research and reviews. None of the things presented there match the Islamic regime's perspectives, and even if they do, that does not necessarily make them unreliable. You should learn how to behave yourself on wikipedia before starting a conversation. The matter is closed, and the obvious conclusion is that Azeris, as we all know, have elements from both cultures, and it is both common and correct to list them as Turkic or Iranian, or both at the same time. There is logically no way to disagree with that, the sources are reliable and verifiable and thus we should proceed with including Azeris here.Shervink 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

When did I personally insult you? Please show me. I just asked you to provide an authoritative and unbiased source according to the rules, which you failed to do so far. Grandmaster 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling other peoples' ideas, be it mine or others' with whom I disagree, chauvinistic propaganda is an insult. The source complies with all wikipedia regulations, and furthermore with any academic or scholarly standards. I don't mind if you choose to neglect sources which do not favor your point of view, but there are ways in wikipedia to make you comply with the regulations. As the sources clearly support both Turkic and Iranian aspects, as does common sense, I think there is no question as to whether Azeris should be included here. We should proceed to include them in the article. Shervink 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Grandmaster take a look at your own source at the Shah Ismail page: [45], you obviously tried to provide a source that says Azeris are turks, but the source does not once mention that Azeris are turks, neither did it have anything to do with Shah ismail. Now if you want to be taken serious here i suggest you cite your own serious source first. --Darkred 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What shah Ismail page has to do with this one? If you want to discuss Shah Ismail, go to the talk page of the respective article. If you want a source that Azeris are Turkic people, see my quote from Britannica above. And I don’t actually need to cite my sources, according to the rules, the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. So if you want to include Azeris as Iranian people, cite a reliable source, please. Grandmaster 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry grandmaster i didn't even bother to read what you had to say this time: if you want to know how to be taken seriously take a look what shervin said above, cite sources that are actually correct, and most of all learn how to speak to others. --Darkred 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Still no source. Grandmaster 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, did you hear me say they are called turkic-iranian? No, i said they are called azeri and their ethnicity is iranian turkic(which means they are a mixture of iranian people and turkic).

It could not be more simple than that, so please stop inventing stuff for yourself then say i said it. --Darkred 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There’s no such ethnicity as Iranian turkic. Please cite your sources. Grandmaster 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not gonna discuss this any further as it seems you only hear what you want to hear. However if you're looking for sources i believe 203.48.45.194 gave you one, take a look above. --Darkred 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Support - my ancestry states it and so do i, it is clear that azeri's have always been of iranic stock...and NOT turkic...

Comments on inclusion of the Azeris

Comment: - Ottomans conquered those places, however Azeris (ex-Medes) have been part of Iran from the very beginning. Infact at the beginning of the Persian empire there were probably more Medes than Persians -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's highly argumentative that the Azeris are descendents of the Medes. For example, the Azeris may or may not regard them as ancestors while most will claim the Oghuz and sometimes the Albanians of the Caucasus as ancestors. In addition, the Medes are claimed as the ancestors of the Persians and the Kurds (although linguistic and genetic evidence points towards the Kurds being more eclectic at any rate) as well. Without that linguistic continuity to show some link to the ancients, we have conjecture and largely guesswork. Tombseye 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never read anywhere that Medes are claimed as ancestors of the Persians, I think that is not correct. The only claims that I know of are that of Azeris and Kurds. The Kurdish genetic tests are far from good quality IMO, the ones I have seen did not test Kurds of Iran which discredits much of the project. There is no question about Kurds being Iranian people just because of their language, but I think Azeris should be included because of atleast some genetic evidence backing up that they are Iranian (See Azeris#Origins) and if they do indeed share the same ancestors as Kurds (Medes), then this would be out of question (as there is supporting evidence that Azeris are close to Persians - then we should certainly mention them, and the fact they have been part of Iran from the very begining and still are the biggest ethnic "minority" group in Iran (20% or so). -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim that it's accurate, I'm saying that the Medes being an ancient people can and are claimed by various groups as their putative ancestors. Now as to the Azeris and the Kurds, the Kurds often view the Medes as one of their main ancestors, while the Azeris don't as much. Actually, the tests for the Kurds outside of Iran are perfectly viable and cannot be used as evidence of the Kurdish lineages of those living in Iran. Yes, well there are no doubt Arabs who have some Iranian ancestry (a good friend of mine from Iraq who considers himself an Arab has a Kurdish mother for example). This is all speculative since we cannot prove that the Medes are the ancestors of the modern Azeris, although some bloodlines are no doubt there since there is no linguistic connection. What's more the genetic tests of Azeris in Azerbaijan (not the ones in Iran) show the closest links to the Armenians and other peoples of the Caucasus followed by Iranian peoples and Turkmen. Lastly, we're not doing an article on Iran, past or present, as this article is about all of the Iranian peoples. This seems like more of a concern of Persians in Iran rather than an objective attempt to define the Iranian peoples in a way that is both quantifiable and discernable as opposed to based upon 'traditional' views and purported descent. Tombseye 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are of Turkish origin. They are the most and most pure Turks. Azeris are more Turkic than even Anatolian Turks. Whatever you hear of Iranian/Persian minority is that to pretend that Azeris were an Iranian people who changed their language without mixing with their Turkic ancestors!! or their neighbouring caucasians. Azeris in second degree (after Turkic) have a caucasian mix. The same goes for Persians. Several times during history large linguistic populations migrated to the so-called Iranian plateau. One of these but only with few invaders were Iranians/persians. The other larger imigration was by Turkic groups. Turkic languages are today the most widely spoken languages in all over Iran (or modern Turan). Turkic languages are and have been spoken in EVERY region in Iran even in Fars province!!. After immigration of Turkic population, the region more resemble to Turan than to an outdated Iran!! Togrol 09:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking purity here, Togrol. No one claims anyone to be pure anything. We are talking about evolution of a term that is refered to a group of people as "Iranain peoples". We want to precisely describe who they are. Azeris and other Iranian Turks, myself included, have had Iranian identity at least since Ghaznavid times. You might be right and we might be originally more Turkic than you guys in Turkey. However, we have been Iranian since history and that is what counts here. That is actually the point missing in this article. Iranian Turks are not a modern phenomenon. They have been Iranians since about 1000 years ago. And they are not Anatolian Turks, by the way. 203.48.45.194 10:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many anons here. No offense, but people who take part in voting and discussions should have some username to go by to avoid the same person claiming different identities. 'Iranian' identity as you are defining it is in reference to what was Persia and became Iran. This article is not about just Iran and cannot be used to promote Iranian perspectives, but is instead meant to relate how the various IRanian peoples, past and present came to be. I suggest you expand the Turko-Iranian article which would be the proper place to discuss the merger of the two groups. Tombseye 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken! :) Just too lazy to create an account and sign in every time. I agree with you that we are not promoting anything here. The problem is the term 'Iranian peoples' does mean a lot different than what this article is talking about right now. It simply does not reflect only speakers of Iranian languages! If so, then the question remains why the current article is not merging with Iranian languages? If it should not, then we should be more specific about the criteria about who to include. Why a certain group with ambigious links to Iran is included and Azeris with the most vivid links to Iranian culture are excluded. The matter is not emotional nationalism. The matter is to use a right term that means the same for all and as used in academia. That is why the comments such Togrol's (above) does not have a place here. Hope that helps. 203.48.45.194 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Groups are defined by language and a shared culture and not by nebulous hypothesis of ancestry. While no doubt Azeris share the great heritage of Iranian civilizations, so are Ottomans and Uzbeqs and Urdus and Pashtuns. One may talk in lands of Islam of Turkish-Persian realm, as opposed to Arabian one in North Africa and Levant. This is a cultural entity and not ethnic one. For instance - Iranians include all Iranian speaking peoples (Khazaras as was pointed out. Culture is evolving thing though and not reliable - Azeris in the north are growing to be much less Iranian by culture that the southern counterparts. Mother tongue rather than customs is most important cultural forming medium. abdulnr 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

abdulnr 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if Ottomans, Uzbeqs and Pashtuns have been influenced by iranian culture, they are not part of iranian civilization. However the azeris are, so are all other turkic groups of iran, they are as much Iranian as the Persians, and i may point out that it has nothing to do with islam. --Darkred 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns are Iranic by culture, heritage, and language. To some extent even more than Kurds or other Iranic peoples. Tajik 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are, most of them do not consider themselfs iranian, they even think of arabs as their brothers. --Darkred 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is too far away from the main purpose of this article! Pashtuns are an Iranic people, no matter what many of them believe or say (keeping in mind that Pashtuns, unfortunatly, belong to one of the most uneducated communities with probably the highest rate of illitracy). There are many Iranians who do not believe in Iranian identity or history and fight for an Arabized "Greater Islamic Ummah". Should we removed the Persians from this article only because Persian-dominated Iran is ruled by a fundamentalist Islamic, pro-Arabic government?! Tajik 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is getting too far from this subject, perhaps we should continue this in another place. --Darkred 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think (or hope) that all this controversy started because of misunderstanding. To answer a question if Azeris are Iranian people we need to identify who are Iranian people and who are Turkic people. Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages, and Iranian people are those who speak Iranian languages. Since Azeris speak a Turkic language, they are not Iranian people. Simple as that. Everyone can see that the inclusion of Azeris as Iranian people received no support from Azeris and so far the only result is that it seriously damaged the relations between the two communities here. That’s not the way it should be. Grandmaster 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

i completely disagree. my whole family is azari from zanjan and ardebil and none of us considers ourselves as turks or torks. there is a big difference between azari's from iran, and the ex-soviet azari's. we speak the language but that's it, and the language is half persian anyway. my non azari friends who speak persian always understand what we say in our house because of the large number of persian words. i honestly don't know any azari from iran who calls himself tork or turk, atleast no one i've ever met. maybe because you're from the ex-soviet azarbaijan and have closer ties to turkey you feel that way. further more, azari's and azarbaijan have existed long before the turks migrated to that area. the biggest azeri festival in the world is on july 9th at babak's fort in iran. babak of course is one of the greatest azari hero's who existed prior to the turks migrating. how do you explain that then? babak wasn't a turk, but he was azari. just Read This, and please note the spelling they use, azari, not azeri. i think you need to understand the viewpoint of the majority of azari's who live in iran and that azari's were there before the turks came. thanks George McFly 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC-5)

It is a joke!!

Not only Azeri Turks in Iran consider themselves as Turks but even all Iranians know and call them as Turks. The famous saying ye rooz torke... (one day a Turk...) may help you remember the reality!

0,0000000000001% of ultranationalists of persian minority TRY to claim Turks are Iranic! Turks are a majority in Iran and have ruled the country for thousands years (as even confessed above) both in Iranian history and demographics they are dominant hence it is easy to understand how those ultranationalistic persians feel! Togrol 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the main question is what language do Azeri people speak? It is a common knowledge that Azeri language belongs to the family of Turkic languages, and hence the answer to the question. Despite close cultural ties with Persian people Azeri people are Turkic. See Ethnologue: [46] Grandmaster 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

so should we consider irish people as anglo-saxons because they speak english now? or how about native americans? are they english because they speak english? the language you speak has no bearing on your genetics and is not mutually exclusive to your ethnicity. also, all azari's in iran speak persian as well and last time i checked there are no turkish words used in persian, but azari and turkish are full of persian words. you cannot deny the fact that azari's were in iran before the turks migrated. please answer me this, was Babak_Khorramdin azari or not? and if you, like 1000% of the world, say yes he was azari, then you've nullified your argument because he was an azari who lived in iran 200 years before the turks even migrated. George McFly 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There’s an Irish (Gaelic) language, and there are languages of native American people. Those languages are still spoken by those people. There’s an Azeri (Turkic) language too, so the speakers of this language are Turkic people. Ancient languages of Azerbaijan are extinct, nobody speaks ancient Albanian or ancient Azeri, except for tiny groups in remote villages. So not real argument, the question is what language do Azeri people speak now, and how is it classified in academic sources. Grandmaster 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic is also an almost extinct language, spoken and understood by a small community that is slowly but surely dying. So, are you trying to say that modern African-Americans are "ethnic Germanics"?! Tajik 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Germanics? Never heard of such. Grandmaster 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For your information: Germanic peoples Tajik 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an answer to your question: The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages. So any member of such a nation belongs to Germanic people regardless of race. Same with Iranian and Turkic people. Note that the List of Germanic peoples includes "cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world, including large groups of English speakers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand". Grandmaster 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"... cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world ..." Now, do you really think that todays Azeris are "cultural descendants of Turko-Mongol uymaqs of Central-Asia"?! I do not think so ... And, btw, you did not answer my question: do African-Americans and American-Hispanics belong to "Germanic" and "Romanic peoples"?! And what about the Russianized Azeris, Uzbeks, and Kazachs in Eurasia ... are they "Slavic people" and "cultural descendants of ancient Slavs"?! Maybe we should start with Gary Kasparov who was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. Is he a "Slav"? Tajik 10:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question. African-Americans and Latin Americans belong to their respective language groups. That what the article on Germanic people says. And I find this discussion to be really irrelevant, it said in the article that The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages, for the same token Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages and Iranian people are those who speak Iranian languages. It is a fact that Azeri language is Turkic, so Azeris don’t belong to this category. End of story. Grandmaster 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

first, the irish gaelic language is basically non-existent, so that voids your argument. second, we can just use your own logic to conclude that azari's should be a part of this group because every azari in iran speaks persian as well. so if every azari speaks persian, then we should use your own argument, The Iranian peoples are the nations speaking Iranian languages, every azari in iran is "bilingual", i am an azari, i'm bilingual, nashod dadash, olmade qardash... George McFly 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What’s your native tongue? Grandmaster 15:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Second - the Celtic languages are not extinct and being much revived. I can certify that Welsh language is taught in schools, and nowadays more than 40% in Wales are bilingual. Scot and Irish gaelic are spoken by 4-10% of population, but is taught in schools and TV channels are devoted to it. Most of all there is strong feeling of belonging to a cultural and ethnic tradition diffrent from Germanic Peoples, that thousand years of English domination could not kill. Whereas English have Beowulf Irish have bards and druids folkore substantially different. Whereas cultural influence of Persian is undenyable strong - It is also very strong in Turkey (yet you chose to exclude Turks of Turkey from the Iranian peoples- Persian was spoken by peoples all over Middle East in India!). Yet Turks have their traditions that are distinctly outside Iranian cultural orbit - Kitabi Dede Gorgud, Ashugs playing saz, tales and a strong Nomadic tradition that is absent from the Iranian culture. This is in addition to the language. So 1) Language 2) culture that is distinct. abdulnr 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there is not much difference between Iranians, Turks, or even Arabs, except for some minor things (like certain traditional folklore, etc). And in this case, Azeris even share many "national heroes and legends" with Persians, like Babak and the Khurramiyyah. Although Babak was an ethnic Iranian, today Azeris consider him one of their own. Azeris also celebrate "Nowruz", undeniably an Iranic cultural element. Turks of Turkey share the "typical Islamic and oriental culture" with Persia, but Azeris, Uzbeks, and Punjabis are much stronger connected to Iranian legends and culture than any other "non-Iranic" peoples. While Punjabis and Uzbeks have also a different ethnic background, Azeris are closely related to Iranians by genetics.

However, I do support your opinion that Azeris should not be listed in this article ... for other reasons listed above.

One last points: "Âshiqs playing Sâz" (the first word is Arabic and means "lover", the second one is a Persian word given to music instrument) is not "unique Turkish culture", but the common Perso-Islamic culture that was adopted by Turks. Sufism and Sufi-music originated in Iran and India. Until today, India and Pakistan are the centers of Sufism and Sufi music, while Persia was the center of Sufi poetry. Tajik 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, The issue here is basically this. Some Iranian Azeris do feel excluded if not named as Iranian, as they find this offensive and separatist. I have to assure them that they are and will be citizens of Iran, partaking in Iranian civilization as much as they want. The language/ethnic groups however have to be defined and defined by groups, as is the scientific custom. The reason it is done this way, because it will be extremely hard to do this any other way except genetic testing of large segments of population. Until this scientific breakthgouth people will be subdivided based on "language group" abdulnr 21:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Azerbaijan and Azeri Separatists should not worry about this voting...

Please do keep in mind that this article is defining a term as in scholarly manner and includes historical aspects of the term. So I am not sure why Azeris of North and Separtists (if any) are too worried about inclusion of Iranian Turks here. I have a feeling that they have started a campaign of vote collection here as I see new names joining to the vote. However, they are more than welcome to come and vote and appreciate their sensitivity. But hope, they are not compormising accuracy and scholarly content in favour of short term political agenda. 203.48.45.194 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment: it is sad to see that political separatists groups funded by Petroleum Politics` mouthpieces who adhere to the Bernard Lewis Plan in which Mr. Lewis as an advisor to the current administration (a la Ahmet Chalabi and the weapons of mass destruction info/fiasco)is lobbying to dismember a country like Iran into various pieces. The goal is to take yoke of the oil rich Caspian Sea basin by merging Iranian Azerbaijan with the Soviet dismantled Republic of Azerbaijan. Then simultaneously they wish to give the oil haven Ahvaz in the south to the neighbouring Arabs for the same reasons, AND the fact that this will officially “Effectively neutralize the sovereign state of Iran by dismembering it”. Under the banner of human rights, many good-intentioned people (people like editors in this dynamic site) are being manipulated via cut-and-paste reversionary history pushed by some paid authors (Dr. Brenda Schaffer from Harvard U, who is the main “expert”/advisor on the Azerbaijan issue, that as it turns out is an ex-intelligence advisor to Israel`s Defense Minister) and native political activists into sub-consciously perpetuating hatred, and segregation via ethno-conflicts. What these “experts” fail to mention is the mighty legacy of ancient Persia in the Caucus[47]. They also seem to get selective amnesia in that they fail to mention the area now known as the Republic of Azerbaijan was previously occupied exclusively by the Alans; Sakans; Tats, and Talysh who are Iranian peoples, and in fact until 20th century the area was called Atuparkan (middle-Persian). Many of them escaped the wrath of the invading Huns/Turks and went deep into Ukraine and other places. Indeed, it was after such invasions that these people who stayed behind mixed with the Turks and became Iranian-Azeris; providing sufficient evidence that although Azeris are Turkic speaking, they are in fact descendents of Iranian peoples, making them pronouncingly different than the Turks/Huns in Turkey, or the Tatars for example. What these “experts” also seem to have forgotten is the fact that the Western governments were in shock and aw upon realising most of the southern Russian, ex-Soviet Union countries like Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan have a heavy Persian legacy, and try very hard to suppress this from the media, in that they do not wish any Iranian influence in the oil wealthy Caspian basin region. Yet, for some, even after a millennium of separation from Persia, and despite the heavy Soviet influence, to this day, they willingly celebrate the Persian culture, and regard it as their own (even in the so called North Azerbaijan, the people in Baku still consider the Persian new year as one of their biggest holidays).

Curiously President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and his administration are dubbed by the UN as having one the worst human rights records in the world. Aliev and company have lend a crucial hand to terrorist groups like SANAM[48] led by another career-less college drop-out, namely Mr.Chehreganli, or the Nazi like Grey Wolf movement[49] who work feverishly to spread propaganda; “Turkish Language and the Native Americans”?, Turkemenistan President, Separmurat Niyazov narrative of Prophet Noah as Turkish”in Iranian Azerbaijan, and by distorting history have succeeded to an extent to buy the sympathy of some Azeris (Wikipedia is a great example of this) against the “Chauvinist Persians”. But the glimmer of hope here is, actually the majority of Azeris consider themselves as proud Iranians, and are deeply offended by the call for them to join the Turks: their Safavid ancestors fought valiantly against the occupation by the Ottoman Empire. One would hope they would truly promote peace, kinship, and education to these ethnic peoples. Yet, what all this will mean is further unfortunate loss of lives, time, and resources that will eventually backfire against these groups. What people need to understand is these are simply history, and no amount of lobbying, or internet hooliganism can change that. The ties of these dignified people to Persia are just too ancient.Zmmz 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is really sad indeed. My point was only to let those who are raising the stake for separitism was that they are campaining against inclusion of Azeris and other Turks here in Irianian peoples not even paying attention to the fact that they are going against the big picutre and depriving Azeris and Iranian Turks form their fair share of credit in Iranian history. I am not sure how much they do care about Azeris. If they do. They should be voting for inclusion in fact. They also forget that Wikipedia is a commonwealth of information and etiquete is not place POVs and political agendas here.

If you can read Azeri in Latin, have a look at their article on Iran in Azeri language. Instead of talking about Iran as an informative topic, they are talking about how Iranian governments have supressed Turkic languages in Iran!!!! Fortunately, I have strong links to my Turkish heritage and know how to read and write proper Azeri in its traditional alphabet. But can only read the newly adopted Latin alphabet and am not a fast typer there. So I could not contribute to the truth and accuracy in there. 203.48.45.194 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism works both ways though. You surely can't believe that you are bereft of any nationalist sentiments yourself. As for selective amnesia, are you forgetting that what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan (Arran) was also home to the Caucasian Albanians who were a majority in the region? Or that the Azeris genetically cluster with Armenians and other Caucasus peoples moreso than with Persians? Or that they speak a Turkic language and thus fail the main criteria? I'm fairly certain I'm not playing any nationalist game and from what I can gather, selective interpretation can work both ways. Ultimately, in accordance with the other articles that describe similar groupings such as Germanic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Latin, Turkic etc. we should be complying with the basic academic view that Azeris simply don't qualify as an Iranic people. If the Azeris are trying to foment 'separatism' I would submit that you are trying to overlook the things that make the Azeris different in order to include them in this article, that is not about people who don't speak an Iranian language. Tombseye 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Chauvinism of all sides was mentioned, and indeed it exists in minute traces among Persians as well. Those who are trying to vociferously exploit ethno-conflicts stand to gain nothing but embarrassment at the end. The Albanians in Arran were not relevant to this article, but actually, yes, that goes further to prove Arran was a region not consisting of Turkic speaking people long before the Turks/Mongols drove many of them away, and Azerbaijan is just a convenient gnome created by the pippeline politicians of the British Empire era a la 1910. What happened intermittingly, in which the Turks invaded these Iranian tribes, and the Albanians were driven out, and imposed their language on them via Elite Dominance, does not change their original ancestory. It is deceptively misleading to call these people Azeri only. Yet, as mentioned the Iranian-Azeris can trace their origin back to Sakas/Alans that may show genetic similarity to their European counterparts, because there is very good reason for that.

A. Sakas/Alans/Scythians were Indo-European tribes.

B. They were all Iranian peoples; both genetics and linguistics have recently proven that, and they had a kinship with their Persian counterparts.

C. Many of them escaping into Europe, namely/mainly the Ukraine and mingling with people as far as the Celts and ancestor to the Dutch, taking with them many Iranian inventions such as the Dutch windmill, and the Ukrainian pants (shalvar, which later spread into to Western Europe and today is the pants we wear, instead, of a Toga) with them.

So, these reasons illustrate why genetically they are comparable with Europeans; yet, most of the scholarly world today, undisputedly agree these were all originally Iranians, in language, customs, genetics etc, and they bear a strikingly close resemblance to their Persian, Mede, and Samartian cousines (one intresting note is, the Scythians for example were the only ones next to Persians, and Medes who were allowed to carry the ceromonial dagger at Persepolis). Any reputable scholar will also acknowledge linkage among ethnic groups is not as simple as mere language; rather it includes an array of factors such as, linguistics, history, anthropology, archeology, and nationalism. One is compelled to ask the question; why despite tremendous influences for the past millennium, these ethnic groups are to this day so proud of their Persian legacy that they consider its culture as their own? Azeris are as much Iranian peoples in culture, heritage, history, ancestry, and even genetics that unfortunately no amount of internet hooliganism or prejudice can change that: it is simply history. Zmmz 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Albanians are relevant to the discussion and the genetic studies actually support a link to the Caucasus moreso than Iranic peoples.[50] Exactly how do you propose to prove that the Azeris are descendents of the Alans? We know the Ossetians are because of their language, but simply having records of them having been there and conquered the area does not mean that the people were Alans/Scythians or even a majority. You've written a long response, but haven't really proven anything except giving some grand narratives. Where's the Iranian language and the genetic evidence to back your claims? Don't tell me you think West Eurasian is not a group that can be broken down because it can be and it is. The Azeris are closer to the Armenians genetically than to the Persians, at least in the Caucasus. There is just as much evidence to support the view that the Azeris are NOT an Iranian people as there is that they are. No language, no solid genetic link, and conjectural interpretation of history. Come on, you honestly think you're not playing the nationalist card here? Tombseye 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Azeris are mixed Turkic speaking people that sprung from the Turkish invasion points to the fact that they did not just appear. They were and are in the location that was Arran that consisted of Albanians, and Iranian tribes. Furthermore, the fact that the entire area was called Arran, then for some reason was renamed Azerbaijan is another indication that Azeris were not a Turkic speaking group that just lived side by side in the Caucus next to the Sakas. No one said Azeris in the north do not have differences when compared to other Iranians, in fact Iranians are a multi-ethnic, multi lingual group, for example the Kurds in the west have a different language/customs, as do Balochies in the south. What happened to Iranians in Arran intermittingly, in which the Turks invaded their tribes, and the Albanians were driven out, and imposed their language on them via Elite Dominance in which an elite group of soldiers are mixed with the tribal colonies and impose their language on them, does not change their original ancestry. You have again failed to give a single rationale as to where the Azeris came from, why they even appear/are part of Iran, even today, and why even the Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan [Baku] possess a Persian culture? It is astonishing how some choose to skip many important facts, such as when you mention “Azeris are genetically close to Armenians”, you fail to mention Azeris in Iran are genetically close to Iranians there, and that both Iranians and Armenians have a intertwining history of intermarriages that leads to similarities. Armenia is by the way a neighbor to Azerbaijan in one side, and Iran is Azerbaijan`s neighbour to the south. Instead, regrettably people write pages of texts about Germanic peoples in an article about Iranian peoples. I think I’ll stop at that.Zmmz 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for this abdulnr 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Azeris were necessarily a Central Asian Turkic group by bloodlines (in fact I support the theory of language replacement and cultural assimilation), but I am saying that we don't really know that they were an Iranic people as I believe that it is more likely that the Azeris (at least in the north) were a Caucasian people related to the Armenians, Georgians etc. who were Turkified. All this is speculation. Therefore, since we cannot prove that the Azeris are descended primarily from an Iranic people, their inclusion makes no sense other than for the purposes of modern Iran's view of nationalist sentiment. It's quite easy as to why the Azeris are linked to modern Iran, they live in the modern state and Turkic rulers ruled much of Persia for quite some time with Nadir Shah to the Qajars. The fact of the matter is that Iran's case is not even unique vis-a-vis Turkco-Iranian interaction. However, this article is not about Turko-Iranians, but the Iranian peoples and specifically those who can be linked without question to Iranian languages and/or tribes. The Persian speak an Iranian language as do the Pashtuns, Kurds, and Ossetians (who morphologically don't resemble the majority of Iranian peoples and would seem to an observor to be Eastern Europeans). Otherwise, we should include the Uzbeks who have interacted quite a bit with the Tajiks as well as Arabs, Sindhis, Turks of Turkey, and a whole variety of people whom we may believe have some ties to the Iranian peoples. And then how much sense will this article make? None. Tombseye 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye. If we want to keep this article we need to stick to rules otherwise it gives the perfect excuse to people who want to delete it and are saying no such group exists or it is confusing. As Tombsey said if we include Azeri people then why shouldn’t Uzbek, people of India or even Arabs be included? They too have been influenced by Iranian culture. As for being descendant of Iranian people, I personally believe 100% that Azeri people are descendant of ancient Iranian people and no less Iranian than Persians, just look how similar they look, they only lost their language. However we can not prove this and even if we could, people are NOT categorized based on genetics. Therefore we have no choice but to talk about them in a different section as the article does now. But I personally think the theory that Azeri people are descant of ancient Iranian people and their language was replaced at a certain point should be mentioned in this section to explain why they are considered Iranian by so many people even if academically they are not. Gol 04:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable approach. You can explain in the article cultural, genetic and other ties of Iranian people with other people, but of course in a neutral manner with reference to reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Tombseye already added a Ethnic and cultural assimilation section that was supposed to solve this problem. Not sure what to do now. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that section is very well written. I don’t think there’s anything else that could be done. Grandmaster 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the section is fine but I also think that it is a good idea if we mention the theory about Azeri people being descendant of the ancient Iranians. some editors were arguing that Azeri people were Iranian completely until a few hundred years ago when they lost their language. If we mention this in the section, as a possibility, then I don’t think there would be anymore problems or arguments.

Something like this for example:

(Certain theories even suggest that Azeris are descendant of ancient Iranian people who lost their Iranian language after Turkic invasion of Azerbaijan.)Gol 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it is properly sourced. Grandmaster 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the section in question but please make any changes necessary. Thank you Gol 07:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that sounds like a compromise we can work with. Saying that some Azeris, at least in Iran, are believed by some to be descendents of Iranic tribes who were turkified is not all unreasonable since we have that on the Azerbaijani people page which I also worked on. Can we agree on this? Tombseye 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful - because Azeris (At least on the north, were samples were taken) are also descendants of Caucasian people, so I will say "some Azeris" - not all. abdulnr 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

the mugshots

I removed them again. I realize it shows faces of members of various Iranian peoples. It still doesn't show "Iranian peoples", it shows "Iranian people" at best. It's a gimmick. In the interest of encyclopedicity, by all means present images of individuals, preferably in traditional garb or otherwise typical of specific ethnic groups, but label them individually (this is a Pashtun, this is a Persian, this is a Yaghnobi, etc.). Just showing a magazin cover, a model, and the Afghan president and labelling them "Iranian people" is ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think the collage is silly, especially the magazine cover, but I can live with the improved caption. dab (ᛏ) 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't show Iranian peoples, it shows Iranian people". It's basically just the list turned into a picture, and I personally think it enhances the article. You're right, the magazine does look pretty weird, we can fix that if need be. It does seem that the Turkic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples pages don't have collages. —Khoikhoi 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

imho, a map along the lines of Image:Iran peoples.jpg (this particular map is too small, not showing Tajikistan etc.) showing the actual distribution of peoples would be rather more encyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely the magazine pic needs to be changed and I'm not a big fan of the picture myself as it's too similar to the peoples' pages, but hey I'm working with a give and take. I agree that it should show people of a more wide variety AND in native dress or something to denote the variability and two Persians (regardless of their religions is excessive). Also, I agree regarding a map. Tombseye 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

I'm sorry to say this, but in the present way this article should be merged with Iranian languages. There seems to be an agreement among most editors (myself not included) that the premier focus here is the Iranian languages. If that is the case, this article is redundant and unnecessary. I propose to merge it with the article on Iranian languages. What do you think?Shervink 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I disagree. Even if this group is purely linguistic still we have a Germanic languages and Germanic people. Slavic languages and Slavic people. why should it be different for iranian? Gol 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading the article as the Iranian language use is one factor, but the main starting factor. It's also impossible to merge this article as there is too much to burden Iranian languages with. Basically, the impasse is not over its content, but the desire to include a group that is not universally regarded as an Iranian people, the Azeris. That's what this is about. And where do we discuss the tribes of Iranian origin, what happened to them and the various peoples who speak Iranian languages? I agree with Gol's take regarding the Slavs and Germanic groups as well. Tombseye 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of voting 17vs15 in favour of inclusion

The result of voting was 17 votes for inclusion of Iranian Turks and Azeris versus 15 votes who opposed the inclusion.

The aim of the voting was to settle a matter that was no consensus for. Now the numbers are in favour of inclusion and I think we should move forward and do so. Please do not carry on with the debate as it is settled with majority vote.

Thanks for voting everyone. 59.167.25.64 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. See Wikipedia:Consensus. A difference of 2 votes does not make consensus. "Majority" is not how things work at Wikipedia. —Khoikhoi 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the anon voting who could be anyone frankly. Tombseye 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Great offence taken this time Tombseye! What about the users, is not easy to create many users. One can create many many users out of one IP address. But the other way around if far more difficult.

User or not, it is important follow the rules. 203.48.45.194 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are following the rules as there is no consensus. Tombseye 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that about half the people that voted support only have 2 edits or so... —Khoikhoi 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Perhaps the anons will find the newer edits more to their liking though. Tombseye 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have problems with Wikipedia allowing new users and IP addresses? I thought that was Wikipedia's policy to allow such edits (and votes)!!! The fact that you have more edits does not entitle you to proclaim more rigths than anyone eles. 203.48.45.194 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He never claimed he has more rights. The fact of the matter is, there is no consensus to include Azeris. Period. —Khoikhoi 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And I welcome new users, but not new users who come here for the sole purpose of votestacking. —Khoikhoi 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. All of this aside, there's no consensus and as I recall the last time we voted to keep the article as is still led to this vote where miraculously more voters showed up with only a few edits to their name (or the lack thereof). with or without new users, there's no consense anyway. And, following discussions here, I've added some more info. regarding the ancient Azari language that should further appease the dissenters. Tombseye 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And some did not go through every Azeri national user in Wikipedia to campaign for a protest?????? Not that there is anything wrong with informing others about this voting process. But knowing sensitivities well and targeting only those with possible no vote is not so acadmeic, is it?

I agree with no consensus despite majority now.' Thanks for pointing me to the Wikipedia rules. However, you started to pick on voters, ignoring the fact that picking can work both ways. I will stop here and hope you come to your senses and do not go around putting them down or accusing people if you do not like their vote. 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is clearly no consensus here. Is there any potential compromise that a consensus could form around? Bucketsofg✐ 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I proposed one here, but too many people disagreed to it. Tombseye already added a Ethnic and cultural assimilation section of the page, which talks about the Azeris. The problem is, I'm not sure if people understand what the definition is "Iranian peoples" exactly is. A lot of people when voting were saying "I am Azeri and I am a proud Iranian". People don't seem to get that the main criteria for being in this group is to speak an Iranian language, and Azerbaijani is a Turkic language. If people want to change the definition, then they'll have to cite their sources. —Khoikhoi 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that many people just don't get that Iranian peoples doesn't equal Iranians, which was why I suggested (as did tajik) that we replace the term with Iranic peoples even though Iranian peoples is more popular in terms of usage. This would, again, be to appease the people who want this article to reflect, in my opinion, a Persian point of view on matters. Tombseye 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, why do you call this article Iranian peoples, then? Why it is not merged with Iranian languages?

You are defining a term, that is already defined and used in acadmeia and elsewhere. The term includes and has included Iranians either Turks or Lors as Iranian peoples (Mardome Iran), for a thousand years, the least. (Refer to Shahnameh for Turkic Mahmud). It hurts those them to see the term being redefined without an inclusive reference to any academic source and just to please Kurd in Turkey or to please Azeris of Repulic of Azerbaijan.

I think the best compromise is to merge this article to Iranian languges as it is claimed to purely linguistic. If not, Azeris are Iranian peoples and any compromise will be redefining the term "Iranian peoples".

Please take a great note on the fact that there is no parallel to this anywhere. More so, anywhere else, there are two terms distinctly used for linguistic purposes elsewhere, like German and Germani or Turkish and Turkic whereas here, we are using a very definite term "Iranian peoples" for language only. 203.48.45.194 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you don't understand the academic usage. This is not what I want to do, but is simply the way academics define a group. The term Germanic peoples, for example, is not something the German claim as exclusively theirs for example. Iranians or Iranian people (as opposed to peoples) are the people of Iran. It can be confusing to some people, while others who read the article seem to come away understanding its usage. I already explained why it cannot be merged with Iranian languages as that article talks about the languages and not the speakers of those languages. It's really that simple. Do you want to add Azerbaijani to the Iranian languages section just so people don't get confused too? That doesn't make any sense at all. Tombseye 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are all knowing scholar! You tell me where in academia the term "Iranian peoples" are defined as solely about only speakers of "Iranian languages" and not Iranian peoples??????? List your references here, please. 203.48.45.194 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pseudo-scientific and constitute original research. If this merge happens, we will organize our Azeri users to protest against it, since all the potential appeasements have been made. Science defines ethnolinguistic groupes in certain way and we should stick to it, or create new science. THis goes aganist all reasonable judgement.

I guess I understand where these misguided users coming from i.e nationality. Ok- this is about Iranian nationality, so you can create an article there, about all the different nationalities that leave in Iran. Pure and simple - this is what you want. abdulnr 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong here. It is not about nationality. The term "Nationality" did not exist one thousand years ago when Ferdowsi called Mahmoud Shah of Iran. Simple as that. And also, the term "Iranian peoples" has had a meaning. Wikipedia is not here to redefine the term. It is here to just explain. The explanation of such term without mentioning Iranian Turks is like defining people of Earth without listing Americans among them. We need to be very specific about the terms already defined and used. We are not here to redefine terms. 203.48.45.194 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The best title for this article

The best title for the contents of this article is: Speakers of Iranian Languages. The question of merging this article with Iranian languages comes later. If an article with the name "Iranian peoples" should exist, that article should either be directed to Iran demographics or should include all Iranian peoples, includin Azeris. There is no strong evidence the term in 'academia', i.e. in a number of well known university text books or in well established encyclopedias the way described here. It is against Wikipedia policy to invent a new definition for a term that has other implications. The fact that there is no consensus on the issue of Azeris or that the terminology is not that clear not for all users, is a clear indication that the term is not defined as per its known meaning. 203.48.45.194 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Iranian peoples is rarely defined on merely linguistic terms, and the definition presented in this article is in fact an inaccurate invention of some editors. There is nothing wrong with having an article on people who speak Iranian languages, in fact, it is great. But the title should reflect the contents. Iranian peoples is not exactly the same as Speakers of Iranian languages. Thus, the title should be changed to the more accurate one. Shervink 08:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

linguistic groups are not labeled as such. For example there is no speakers of Germanic languages but instead we have Germanic people. same goes for Slavic people and Iranian people is an academic term. So no need to change the title. What we need is to discuss the content of the article to make sure it is accurate. Gol 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because we do not have a word like Germanic people for Iranian languages, we can not use a term such as Iranian peoples and use it the same way as Germanic, Slavic and Turkic peoples are used. We can not invent words such as Iranic because it is against Wikipedia and we can not do research here. But the term Iranian peoples does not mean only "people who speak Iranian languages" as this article claims. It has a broader meaning. That is why this article claims to be an ethno-linguistic article. If pure language, then why not merge with Iranian languages? We really need to source why we use this term for speakers of Iranian languages. Where exactly this term was used first and which university text books and establsihed reliable encylopedias used this. Unfortunately, some of the references used in this article are not so reliable either. One of the most important encyclopedias around is Britanica, it does not define the word the way we have it here. What more can I say!!!! 203.48.45.194 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Azeri's have more to do with Iran and Iranic peoples than they do with Turks

Yes, Azeri's do speak a Turkic language today, that is undeniable. BUt the thing is that Azeri's are ethnic Iranic's who have been Turkicised.

Here are somethings to consider: -Turkish historians noted the language of the region to be Iranic in the 17 century. -The name Azerbaijan is itself Iranic, meaning "land of fire" -Iranians such as Babak fought for Irans independence from Arab rule. And that was before the Turkic migrations into the region, which shows that people of that region were origionally Iranic. -Kurds and Talysh's make up 25% of the population in Iranian Azerbiajan. And many Kurds have been moved from that region during the Perso-Ottoman wars because they were Sunni, and tended to support the Sunni Ottomans. -The Safavids, who are said to be of Azeri origion, considered themselves Iranian. Nadir Shah ahs even written on one of the coins that he had circulated during his reign that he is the King of Iran. Why would a Turk (or Turkic) person consider themselves King of Iran, the Land of Aryans? Because he considered himself Iranian. -Azerbaijani's and Kurds are said to be descendents of the Medeans. Many north Azeri's also acknowledge this.

So in conclusion, Azerbaijan and Azeri's ahve more to do with Iran and Iranic history than they do with Turkic's or Turkic history.Iranian Patriot 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)