Misplaced Pages

Talk:Iranian peoples: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:32, 4 May 2006 editTogrol (talk | contribs)98 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:15, 14 September 2024 edit undoKane 1371 (talk | contribs)48 edits →Persian was spoken in court in the Ottoman Empire?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{Talk header}}
|-
{{Article history|action1=FAC
!align="center"|]<br/>]
|action1date=05:05, 8 June 2006
----
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Iranian peoples
|-
|action1result=promoted
|
|action1oldid=57483906
* ]
* ]
* ]
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


|action2=FAR
== collage of different iranian peoples ==
|action2date=09:21, 30 June 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Iranian peoples/archive1
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=61230100


|action3=FAR
I'd like to point out some major problems with . The second picture from the left is an azeri woman who are Turkic, not Iranic. Plus ]'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. -] 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
|action3date=02:09, 26 July 2010
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Iranian peoples/archive2
|action3result=removed
|action3oldid=374921291


|maindate=December 10, 2006
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? Thanks] 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Kurdistan|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Caucasia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Tajikistan|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Ossetia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=low}}
}}
{{tmbox
|image =]
|textstyle = text-align:center;
|text = ] is <span class="plainlinks"></span> of the English Misplaced Pages!
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(90d)
|archive=Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive %(counter)d
|counter=9
|maxarchivesize=100K
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft=4
|minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
{{old move|date=28 September 2022|from=Iranian peoples|destination=Iranic peoples|result=Not moved|link=Talk:Iranian_peoples#Requested_move_28_September_2022}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=iranpol}}
{{TOCleft}}{{clear}}


== Potentially inaccurate information about Iranian tribes ==
: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. &mdash;] 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Different tribes are named as Iranian tribes with no references. Please either cite a prominent resource or remove that part.
::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. ] 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


== Revising the section on the history of Western vs. Eastern Iranian peoples ==
I would suggest revising the sections on the history of Eastern and Western Iranian peoples. Firstly, the division into Eastern and Western is a linguistic one and not necessarily the best way to distinguish between different cultural groups. In fact, the section on Eastern Iranian peoples includes only Steppe-Iranian peoples who spoke languages that are categorised as Eastern but lived north or even west of the Western Iranians and are culturally very different from the Iranian peoples in the eastern part of the Iranian plateau. Moreover, Avestan is not an eastern Iranian language, but is so old that it preceded the division is west vs. east. Secondly, it is the people who lived in the eastern parts of ] who gave their name to this somewhat confusing category, but they are absent from this part of the article. Thirdly, I would suggest adding a section on the ] who actually lived in the eastern part of Greater Iran and are not yet covered in this article. ] (])


== Persian was spoken in court in the Ottoman Empire? ==
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 .Thanks] 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Whats the source of this claim? Or is this another Persian propaganda? ] (]) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (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. ] 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


:Kindly read ]. What exactly is "another Persian propaganda"?
:* ''"As the Ottoman Turks learned Persian, the language and the culture it carried seeped not only into their court and imperial institutions but also into their vernacular language and culture. The appropriation of Persian, both as a second language and as a language to be steeped together with Turkish, was encouraged notably by the sultans, the ruling class, and leading members of the mystical communities."'' -- Inan, Murat Umut (2019) "Imperial Ambitions, Mystical Aspirations: Persian Learning in the Ottoman World" in Green, Nile (ed.). The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca. University of California Press. pp. 88–89.
:* "''Persian served as a ‘minority’ prestige language of culture at the largely Turcophone Ottoman court."'' -- Baki Tezcan. (2012). "Ottoman Historical Writing" in José Rabasa (ed). '' The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 ''. pp. 192–211
: - ] (]) 00:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:I dont know man, what are those Persian poems doing on topkapi Palace?
:Probably some more Persian propaganda ] (]) 09:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024 ==
Please do not initiate another edit war here; it is not my comments, rather I provided you with both ] and , ] Germanic people are irrelevant here, and these disputes are frankly too frivolous, too often. Excuse me, why is there an argument here? ] 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Iranian peoples|answered=yes}}
:I just read those articles and they Azeris are a Turkic people. What's your point? ] 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Fix citation 2 and add citation to total population. ] (]) 02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Here is another pic.] 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. &mdash;] 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are three more pictures] 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::The last picture seems fine. ] 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!] 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. ] 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

::But you're the one who recently in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the ]. See ]'s comment . &mdash;] 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 ] and ] 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. ] 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. ] 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

::::I think that problem can be addressed at the ] page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 --]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly they 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. {{unsigned|Zmmz}}

::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 --]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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 ].

We know for sure that Iran and Iranians widely called themselves so in times of ]s and ] dynasties since the term was extensively used in ] of ].
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 ] 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 ] 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.
] 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.] 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

: Of course it goes back to the Achaemenids. See ]. 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? ] 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


::: True, ] does not mention Arya. But, if you look at ] of ] you find many many mentions of the term Iran there which implicitly means Aryans. ] 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? It's us moderns who put the "people" first. ] 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." ] 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? ] 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. ] 06:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Darius in ] 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 . 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. ] 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.

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. ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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, ], 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 ]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant ]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) --]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 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''”, . You can view his web site. And, I already added a pic of a Tajik. Also, Persian Jews, are as Iranian as anybody else.] 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?! ] 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.] 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 ] 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.] 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. ] 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. ] 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

: I disagree, a collage is needed for the introduction. --] 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'''-] 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... ] 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. ] 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Delete''' or '''Change''', per Tombseye.] 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.] 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

'''Delete''' and instead replace with ]. ] 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

=== Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section===
'''Delete'''-] 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. ] 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. &mdash;] 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - I am already working on that, but let`s concentrate on the colleague and others.] 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. ] 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

**Yeah, I was talking about the collage. Nice work anyhow. :) &mdash;] 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, , 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.] 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. &mdash;] 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 (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.] 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

=== Vote on the Hazara Girl picture ===
*'''Keep'''-] 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.] 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. ] 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 ].

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.

] 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.
: ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] 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? ] 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 ] 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. ] 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? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 17:25, 24 April 2006.</small><!-- -->

: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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages, is thus original research. Misplaced Pages cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term ''Iranian''. ] 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. ] 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

==Voting to include Iranian Turkic speaking groups here==

'''Ends 1am (GMT) 8th May 2006'''

''(I put a deadline so that this does not go forever... hope everyone agrees... ] 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'''

:#] 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.
:#'''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. --]<sup>] | </sup> 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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. ] 09:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Strong support''' - I have been always advocate of this. No doubt Iranian Turks have been a vitat part of Iranian peoples since anciant history. ] 10:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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'''. --] 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Strong support''' - It is better to include than to exclude. ] 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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:.] 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
:#'''Strong support''' I did not know that it was possible to assume they were not Iranian peoples!!! ] 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:# '''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. ] 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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. ] 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. --] 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Strong support''' - as per .] 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
'''Against Inclusion'''

:#'''Strong opposition'''-for reasons already stated, the inclusion of Turkic peoples or Arabs etc. will dilute the article and make any classification pointless. Instead ] 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. ] 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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:) --] 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. ] 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Strong oppose''' per reasons above. &mdash;] 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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. ] 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'''. ] 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Oppose''' While Azeris (as well as the majority in Iraq, Turkmenistan, or even Turkey) may be Iranian by origin (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 ] as "Iranic people", although the Hazaras are mostly Turco-Mongol by origin. ] 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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. ] 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Strongly oppose'''. More nonsense. Since when do we "vote" over factual accuracy disputes? This article is supposed to be about the speakers of ]. The Azeris don't speak an Iranian language. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: Well, then. Why is this article not merged with ] if this article is about language only??? If this is not only linguistics and includes culture etc. then why not include Azeris???
:#'''Strongly oppose'''. This claim is simply ridiculous.. --] 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:#'''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. --] ] 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Oppose''' per Tombseye.] 23:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Oppose''' - this must be a joke--] 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:#'''Oppose''' ] 17:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

===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. &mdash;] 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 ]). ] 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. &mdash;] 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. ] 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..." --]<sup>] | </sup> 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 ]. 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. ] 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. ] 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). --] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:: You are mixing citizenship with ethnicity. These are different things. This page discusses ethnicity only. ] 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. --] 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. ] 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''I don't agree''' I agree with abdulnr. ] 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87
*'''I don't agree''' - as per .] 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''. ] 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. --] 09:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::You have to remember Turkic is not Turkish, Turkish only refers to people from Turkey --] 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::: OK, is there such ethnicity as Turkic-Iranian? I never heard of it. ] 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, and its name is Azeri, Qashqai and the rest of the iranian-turkic groups. --] 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. ] 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::::: Grandmaster, have a look at 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. ] 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 ]. 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 ]:

:::::: 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. ] 08:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Please have a look at this . 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 . ] 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 ], authoritative source? ] 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines, and its contents are directly relevant here. ] 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 ] source is. ] 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.] 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. ] 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. ] 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
::::::::::: Grandmaster take a look at your own source at the Shah Ismail page: , 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. --] 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. ] 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. --] 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Still no source. ] 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. --] 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
: There’s no such ethnicity as Iranian turkic. Please cite your sources. ] 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. --] 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

==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 --]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 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 ]) 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). --]<sup>] | </sup> 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. ] 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!! ] 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. ] 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 ] article which would be the proper place to discuss the merger of the two groups. ] 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 ]? 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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

: ] are Iranic by culture, heritage, and language. To some extent even more than ] or other Iranic peoples. ] 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. --] 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?! ] 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::Yes it is getting too far from this subject, perhaps we should continue this in another place. --] 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. ] 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 , 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 ] 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! ] 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: ] 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 ] 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. ] 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. ] 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"?! ] 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Ethnic Germanics? Never heard of such. ] 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::: For your information: ] ] 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 ] includes "''cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world, including large groups of English speakers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand''". ] 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 ] who was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. Is he a "Slav"? ] 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. ] 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... ] 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::: What’s your native tongue? ] 15:51, 4 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. ] 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 ] 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 ] into various pieces. The goal is to take yoke of the oil rich ] basin by merging Iranian ] with the ] dismantled ]. 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. ] from ] U, who is the main “expert”/advisor on the ] issue, that as it turns out is an ex-intelligence advisor to ]`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. 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 ]; Sakans; ], and ] who are Iranian peoples, and in fact until 20th century the area was called Atuparkan (middle-]). Many of them escaped the wrath of the invading Huns/Turks and went deep into ] and other places. Indeed, it was after such invasions that these people who stayed behind mixed with the ] and became Iranian-Azeris; providing sufficient evidence that although Azeris are Turkic speaking, they are in fact descendents of ], 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 ], ex-Soviet Union countries like ], and ] 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 ] still consider the Persian new year as one of their biggest holidays).

Curiously ] ] of Azerbaijan and his administration are dubbed by the ] as having one the worst ] records in the world. Aliev and company have lend a crucial hand to terrorist groups like SANAM led by another career-less college drop-out, namely Mr.Chehreganli, or the Nazi like Grey Wolf movement who work feverishly to spread propaganda; , in Iranian Azerbaijan, and by distorting history have succeeded to an extent to buy the sympathy of some Azeris (Misplaced Pages 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 ] ancestors fought valiantly against the occupation by the ]. 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.] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 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 ], 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. ] 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. 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? ] 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 consistent 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 living side by side in the Caucus next to the Sakas. When you state, 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, much like 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, 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 these ethnic groups even have a Persian culture? In all, you can concentrate on their differences, but fail to explain where did Azeris come from? 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 similiraties. Instead, people write pages of texts about Germanic peoples in an article about Iranian peoples. I think I’ll stop at that.] 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:15, 14 September 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranian peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former featured articleIranian peoples is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 8, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
June 30, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconIran Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKurdistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCaucasia (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTajikistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOssetia (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia
WikiProject iconIraq High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPakistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTurkey High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAfghanistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCentral Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconIranian peoples is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEastern Europe (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
Wikimedia milestoneIranian peoples is the 1000th featured article of the English Misplaced Pages!

On 28 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Iranian peoples to Iranic peoples. The result of the discussion was Not moved.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Potentially inaccurate information about Iranian tribes

Different tribes are named as Iranian tribes with no references. Please either cite a prominent resource or remove that part.

Revising the section on the history of Western vs. Eastern Iranian peoples

I would suggest revising the sections on the history of Eastern and Western Iranian peoples. Firstly, the division into Eastern and Western is a linguistic one and not necessarily the best way to distinguish between different cultural groups. In fact, the section on Eastern Iranian peoples includes only Steppe-Iranian peoples who spoke languages that are categorised as Eastern but lived north or even west of the Western Iranians and are culturally very different from the Iranian peoples in the eastern part of the Iranian plateau. Moreover, Avestan is not an eastern Iranian language, but is so old that it preceded the division is west vs. east. Secondly, it is the people who lived in the eastern parts of Greater Iran who gave their name to this somewhat confusing category, but they are absent from this part of the article. Thirdly, I would suggest adding a section on the Avestan people who actually lived in the eastern part of Greater Iran and are not yet covered in this article. Kjansen86 (talk)

Persian was spoken in court in the Ottoman Empire?

Whats the source of this claim? Or is this another Persian propaganda? Crxyzen (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:AGF. What exactly is "another Persian propaganda"?
  • "As the Ottoman Turks learned Persian, the language and the culture it carried seeped not only into their court and imperial institutions but also into their vernacular language and culture. The appropriation of Persian, both as a second language and as a language to be steeped together with Turkish, was encouraged notably by the sultans, the ruling class, and leading members of the mystical communities." -- Inan, Murat Umut (2019) "Imperial Ambitions, Mystical Aspirations: Persian Learning in the Ottoman World" in Green, Nile (ed.). The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca. University of California Press. pp. 88–89.
  • "Persian served as a ‘minority’ prestige language of culture at the largely Turcophone Ottoman court." -- Baki Tezcan. (2012). "Ottoman Historical Writing" in José Rabasa (ed). The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 . pp. 192–211
- LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I dont know man, what are those Persian poems doing on topkapi Palace?
Probably some more Persian propaganda Kane 1371 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix citation 2 and add citation to total population. 64.189.18.28 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: