Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request from Hamed.zizo, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} hi Sorry. I do not speak English. I translated with Google I am turkish speaking and i living in iran we Iranian Azeris have always been Racism located. The Iranian fascism government has always endeavor all races (turks, kurds, arabs and ...) except the Persians destroy Ahmad Kasravi is a liar . Persian azeris is a lie. We (Turks of Iran) are iranian but We are not persian. (persian = People who speak Farsi) Please and please and please delete This article becaus the lies. The Iranian government oppression to 20 million iran turks. Please be truthful. You are our hope for a global consciousness about racism in iran. thank you

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Azerbaijani_language Hamed.zizo (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skier Dude (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article should be changed

There is not an ethinic background known as Iranian Azeris. Azeris are a Turkic peoples that have its roots in the Oguz Turks an of shoot of the centrel Asian Turks. These turks came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. The term Iranian Azeri implies that these people are Iranian however it is clearly proven that they are not. This article should have its name changed to Azeris in Iran which is the same name as most articles such as "Kurds in Turkey" and so on...Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also typed in Azeris in Iran in Google and it produced 9,260,000 where as Iranian Azeris produced 5,030,000 hits. This tells us something about the name change does it not? Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of Persian in the Article.

As to my awareness the use of Persian is a very offensive term to the Azeris living in Iran. This is because the name Persian is a name given to the Farsi speaking peoples of Iran. This issue is clearly stated in the wikipedia article "Persian People" . To add to this the wikipedia article clearly states that the origins of the Persian people are traced back to Indo-Iranians where as Azeris in Iran is traced back to the Central Asian Steppes. I therefore will be removing any indication of the Azeri people, a completely diffrent ethnic group being persian. Again feel free to argue against.

Thank you for reading Regards Tugrul irmak Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there are rules that determine the outcome of article . All of us (editors) may edit the article using the guidelines of Wiki. First, Indo-Iranian does not means Persian as you think and that is a diverse group of people ; second , you are not representative of Azeri Iranians and what you think is offensive , is your Point Of View and not mine (I'm Iranian Azeri); third , you can add any sentence with reliable sources to the article , but you are not free to remove any sentence that you don't like . First you have to discuss it in talk page and after that it is possible to delete a sentence from the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The correction I made had no concern with the Indo-Iranians for the article did not mention them. The correction I conducted was concerning the use of Persian. As we all know, Persian reffers to a disticnt ethnicity from the Azeri population in Iran. This is not stated by me but is stated by the wikipedia article "Persian people" if you fail to see the distinct ethnic differences between these two peoples please discuss the matter in the article "Persian Peoples" this is because Azeris there are not brought under the classification of Persian. I would also like to say that Wikipedia does not allow for biast edits made by editors please refrain from doing so. Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you are mentioning the word "Persian Azeris / Persian Azerbaijanis "? If yes , that word is used in sources because of interchangeability of the name Iran with Persia in European nomenclature and does not means Azeris are Persian languages. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it does not mean it such a misunderstanding is common. For me the writing implies Azeris are Persian which certainly is not the case. Therefore please refute it or atleast write an explanatory note. Thank you.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The determining factor in English Wikipedia is the common word used in English texts . For non-Iranians the word Persian and Iranian are almost equal, and we can't change the word because it cause misunderstanding for you . The name is used in the article to explain the term for English language readers.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For non Iranians the term Persian and Iranian are anything but equal. According to wikipedia article "Persian Peoples" the Persian are a different ethnicity. Therefore the phrases used to classify Azeris as Persian should be changed. However feel free to use Iranian Azeries because as I understand from the other editor unlike Persian, Iranian is a national identity.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Persian has several meaning, one is from Persia. Actually, that was the most common in the 19th century. Anyhow, Iranian is not used in the ethnic sense, see "Iranian Armenians", "Iranian Arabs", "Iranian Turkomans".. It is a common enough scholarly notation. thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean Khodabandeh Iranian is a reference to the nationality of being Iranian (part of the state of Iran.)However the use of Persian indicates an ethnicity which should be refuted in the introduction of the article.ThanksTugrulirmak (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The word Persian can have three meanings for outsiders(non-Iranians): meaning number one is "Iranian" ,Number two is "Persian language" and three the ethnic group . In "Persian Azeris / Persian Azerbaijanis " it has been used in the place of Iranian . We can not omit it because it has been used in the sources and if we delete it the reader may not understand the meaning of that word .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For more information about the interchangeability of the terms Persian and Iranian , please look at Name of Iran article .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You said it is used instead of iranian however the article has already said "Iranian Azeries" therefore there is no need to say the same thing twice with a language that indicate an ethnicity. Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On the term Persian Azerbaijanis, I believe you were the one that removed it first without discussing it here. Here I will discuss it:"Persian Azeris/Azerbaijanis" is sourced from at least two major full professors (not lecturers but major full professors): Richard Frye and Tadeusz Swietochowski. Please note: WP:RS states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.". These are two academic sources and both authors are reliable enough. Your opinion on the matter is WP:OR and you need to show a source WP:RS that states explicitly that using such a term is wrong in academic settings. Your intrepretation of the term is WP:OR as Persia was the official name of the country before 1935 and it is widely used today. It does not necessarily have an ethnic meaning and rather it is another name for Iran. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a section above that already has a discussion concerning the use of persian. I suggest you use that.Also please give refferences. thank you.Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Here they are: References:

• Richard Nelson Frye, "Persia", Allen & Unwin, 1968. pp 17: "in World War II, contact with brethren in Soviet Azerbaijan likewise were not overly cordial since the Persian Azeris are commited to Iranian culture and consider their destiny to be with the Persians rather than with other Turks"
• Tadeusz Swietochowski, "Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community", Cambridge University Press, 2004. pg 187: "..the Persian Azerbaijanis would fight against them to the last man"

For author's academic background see: Richard Frye and Tadeusz Swietochowski. And my reference on language (its extent of usage) is Nikk R. Keddie and the other author I mentioned (from University of Upsala). Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My friend your books are a bit outdated. 1965 and 1905-1920? This is a lot of time for ones identity to change. Just look at the Arabs, within a mere 10 years (1860s) a sense of nationalism developed "the father land". Unless you can provide me up to date information I am afraid I will have to revert it.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please reference the book that was written in 2004 so we can actualy see the releated part of it. In google books it comes up with "this part is restricted sign" doesn't realy help. To add to this point the chapter of the book where the quote "the Persian Azerbaijanis would fight against them to the last man" comes from is called Russian Azerbaijan 1905-1920. I believe a situation can change in a 100 or years time. To add to this the quote given could be from a primary source and not his personal statement. I realy don't know this untill I can actualy aquire a section that is not filtered. Thnk you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some one like Richard Nelson Frye is a very famous scholar and that is natural to use his books for a long time . Many of his old books are still a text book in best universities . And again the Swietochowski did not wrote his book in 1905 ! The book is published in 2004 and that part is about the Bolsheviks attempt to annex any part of Persian territory.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure Richard Nelson Frye is a very good scholar but no one can know the future and this principle does not fall short of Mr Frye. A book writen in 1965 can not adress the question of Azeris identity now. It can however give us an idea of how it was in 1965 or the WW2 which is what he was writing about. I did not say the book was written in 1905. If you read my reply carefully you will see that I said the book is fairly recent which is good. However the period of history that is being adressed in the book is the period of 1905-1920 (please look at the chapter). Therefore it has no relevance to now, which is almost 100 years later. Lastly the book can not even be read on the place the link directs us to. How can we source from somewhere when we do not know the context in which the phrase was made. Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Frye meets WP:RS, end of story. Your arguments are not in WP:RS because you have no source contradicting the term. The other book is published in 2004, and at that time, even "Azerbaijani" was not used, so the context is now. Else the author would not use "Azerbaijani" for 1905-1920 when the ethnonym was not even used by virtually all Azerbaijanis. You can get the book from the library, and the relevance is that the author is discussing 1905-1920 in modern context (not quoting matieral from 1905-1920 that mentions the term, but writing as a 2004 author), not thousands of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.65.232 (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly please sign your edits. My friend you have not rwead what I am saying carefully. The book writen by Mr Fyre is written in 1968 and it adresses issue to do with World War 2 therefore the terms he uses are releated to that period of time and not now. The 2004 book is called Russian Azerbaijan 1905-1920 (the term Azerbaijanis was indeed used to class the muslim population of Soviet Caucuss) this also means the writer is providing information about us about the azeri national identity at the times of 1905-1920 hence the name of the book "Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of a National Identity". We can not say the discussion is in modern context when the whole page can not be seen and the title itself gives us an indication on how "modern" of a context we are speaking. These books in anyway you look at them adress a period of history that is from 110-70 years ago therefore have no relevance to Azeri identity NOW. We can source them for how the identity built up but thats another matter. In any case the 2004 book needs to be properly linked so we can actualy READ THE PAGE WHERE THE QUOTE IS GIVEN FROM. Thank you.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The context is discussing history from a 2004 perspective. It is discussing Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani and his movement from a 2004 perspective. Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani is a well known Iranian Azerbaijani and hence reference to him and his followers as "Persian Azerbaijanis" is an acceptable modern terminology, from an WP:RS source. The book should be available in any good library and it is not my obligation to write the whole book, but i just presented the context for you. Again there is an WP:RS source, and if you feel it is wrong, you need an WP:RS to show why the exact terminology is wrong, and not continuing WP:FORUM discussion. I am not going to respond to WP:FORUM discussion unless you present WP:RS sources. Also Richard Frye's 1968 book is not outdated (did someone contradict them and who?) and you need to show an WP:RS that mentions that book is using wrong terminology. So until you bring WP:RS sources, there is no need to discuss the issue. Persia is an acceptable alternative to Iran and it is used in academic and modern books as well. Wikipedia does not care about personal opinions just academic and high quality sources. And in order to dismiss such sources, you need academic and high quality sources, else there is no need to engange in forum discussion. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuetrality in the Article.

The Nuetrality of the Article is under real question. This is because Azeris at first are portrayed to be of a Persian descent also to add to this the the sub-article under the heading Origins only gives the origins theory that Azeris are Persian. However there are many other theories such as the Caucasian theory as well as the Oguz theory. Therefore I here by open the nuetrality of the article to question under the WP:NPOV .Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by concensus and WP:RS sources. The Azeris in Iran have Iranian nationality.. Their origin like all people of Iran is mixed but DNA wise, the effect of Oghuz groups was not significant as they cluster with surrounding non-Turkic speakers (Iranic speakers, Georgians and etc.). As per their origin, the area spoke Persian languages prior and I doubt the Oghuz Turks massacared in wholesale the whole native Iranian population. Rather there was a period of bilingualism and eventually due to historical factor, a common Turkish language with a heavy Iranian substrate was formed. But these are not the concern of the article. Having Iranian nationality (citizenship) is sufficient to have Iranian Azeris as Iranian Azeris have had Iranian nationality for many centuries. Khamenei, or Musavi or Googoosh or Farah Pahlavi consider themselves Iranians and Azeris, as complementary phenomenon. For example Khamenei or Musavi are not some sort diaspora in Iran, they are Iranian Azeris. If you tell them you are not "Iranian" or you a diaspora in Iran, they will be insulted.

Azeris may not be speaking a Persian based language, but they have Iranian nationality. For example, the Central Asian Persians (Tajiks) speak Persian but they do not have an Iranian nationality.. Google books gives 480+ hits for Iranian Azeris [1]. We also have Arab Americans and Arab Iranians. It does not mean these Arabs are Persians, but they have Iranian nationality. "Arabs in Iran" would mean that they are some sort of modern immigrants which is inaccurate. Azeris are not completely different than Persians as you make it seem, they share the same holidays as Persians (more than with Anatolian Turkish speakers), religion (Shi'ite), and most importantly, common history. If they were completely different, than there would not be so many mixed Azeri-Persian marriages. Music tradition of Mugham even in republic of Azerbaijan is closer to music of Iran than Turkey. Their DNA is also closer to other Iranians then Central Asian Turks or Anatolian Turks. For example, it is well known that the DNA of Azeri-speakers in the republic of Azerbaijan is closer to Armenians than Anatolian Turks, as both populations basic DNA was formed before even Indo-European, Turkic speakers and even Caucasian speakers. But those issues are not of concern. What is important to note is that Azeris in Iran have Iranian nationality, and they are not some sort of diaspora in Iran. Just like there is not an article "Arabs in America"(it is Arab Americans) or "Blacks in America" (it is African American), the same states true here. So since you have changed the page without a concensus I am reverting your change back. If you want to change the article, please seek an official vote and concensus. Also other pages (say "Turkish Kurds" or "Kurds of Turkey" is not a concern of this page, and you can take up that issue it its own discussion). Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the fact that Azeris have similar holidays to Persians does not make them Persians themselves. I share the same holidays as Americans e.g. new year, mothers day but this does not make me an American. Therefore you point on holidays is void. Religion is also not a common ground that defines ethnicity this is because I myself am a Sunni however this does not mean I am remotely similar to Arab Sunnis. I have trawled through the information on the genetics of the Azeri peoples and I have noticed one critical thing (not that it took me long to do so). This was that all the reserach was conducted in Iran (not surprising) however we must question the credibility and the reliability of these sources. The reason being, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not known for its opennes and nuetrality when it comes to a matter involving national security. If data that suggested Azeris were completely different geneticly from Persians was attained then I heavily doubt the Iranian government would let the data be published.This is because it will only help to increase the nationalist sentiment Azeri Turks currently have, and Iran does not want this. All the reserach is also likely to be conducted in the supervision of government officials. You have said Azeris were Turkufied, first of all this "turkification" process of Azerbaijan is largeley based on speculation since there are really no documents that could explain how people of Azerbaijan changed their language from a dialect of persian to oguz turkic tongue so fast. There is no proof of any mass migration that occured in 900-1100s or later except the rule of Seljuks. But Seljuks ruled over whole Iran and even part of Iraq, and still they didn't leave much turkic-speakers in these parts, except some migrant turkic tribes that settled in Iran and northern Iraq, even today are minority. Settlement of turkic-speaking soldiers of Seljuks and later Ilkhanides also can't explain turkification because migrant turks should have been assimilated by local peoples, since 40.000 army of cumans who migrated to Georgia did not assimilate a single village but were assimilated among georgians, the same story is with mongol army in Afghanistan and kalmyk-oirat invaders in Kazakhstan. To add to this it was Turks themselves there were influenced highly by Persian culture because it does not take a lot to influence a nomad from the steppes of Asia. We know this because the use of Persian in both the Selcuq court and the Ottoman court was excessive. For example when Sah Ismail sent a letter to Sultan Selim in Azeri Selim replied in persian. You have stated that the Azeris and Persians have a historical link. Yes this is true however the same goes with the link between Azeris and Anatolian Turks for it was the Azeri Turks that lead the way to Selcuq advance in to Anatolia after the Battle of Malezgirt. You have also argued that there is no such articles concerning "Arabs in America" or "Blacks in America" then you dismissed my argument of "Kurds in Turkey" as being irrelevant to the article. I find this hypocritical.

Thank you for reading. Regards, Tugrul irmak Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If any further proof is needed please feel free to look at the article "Azeriler". It is an article of wikipedia written by Azeris in Azeri langauge which distincly says Azeris are of Turkic origins. I am sure the members of an ethnicity class themselves better then we can ever hope to do or should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to prove a study is wrong , you can't use conspiracy theory alone! Where is the fact that all the genetic researchs in Iran are manipulated ? More than that , how can studies such as [2] conducted by non-Iranians , can be manipulated without any trace ?! Who said that the Turkification took place "so fast"?! It took hundreds of years! And you asked why Turkification occurred only in Azerbaijan and not in other parts of Iran , the answer is the only part of Iran that has the rainfall suitable for nomadic tribes is Azerbaijan and other parts are more dry to support the nomads .... About using "Azeris in Iran " vs "Iranian Azeris" , it is clear that we (Azeris) are not immigrants to Iran and we are not citizens of Az.republic in Iran !! We are the local owners of this country and naming us something like Turks in Germany is some kind of offensive! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What you might indentify your OWNself is no concern to this article. For the note it is not conspiracy it is common sense. A government with a troubled ethnic minority would not want to give any that ethnic minority any reason to stir the region up.It has a vested interest. To add to this the orginins of the Azeri Turks are clearly outlined in the article Azeriler which is writen by the azeri consensus of wikipedia, feel free to look. If that is the case why didn't Turkufication happen in greece which was under ottoman rule for 600 years more then what South azerbaijan was. Howcome the former Greeks and Armenians living in Turkey became Turkufied to such an extent that they loose their identitiy. Howcome the Turks who has ruled these lands where these people reside were not able to convert them in 1000 years but they could do so with the Azeris in hundreds of years? Azeris were not Turkufied but were Turks to begin with. Just ask the Azeris in the Azeri wikipedia. Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record noone has any rights over any land! People were there before Persians, animals were there before people then animals are rightful owners of the land! "Rightfull" ownership is nothing but a sack made to suit certain claims. You are the rightful owner of the land if you can win it by armed means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Until you present a reliable source that shows all the genetic studies about the Iranian Azeris are manipulated , that is a conspiracy theory and that is original research and can not be used in Wikipedia . You can express your point of view in your personal weblog but not here . why didn't Turkufication happen in Greece under Ottomans ? I'm not an expert in Greece history , but perhaps that was because of the different religion of Greek people in Europe and when Armenians and Greeks in Anatolia became Muslims , the language also changed and the became Turkic language .I think the word South Azerbaijan in wrong and the real Azerbaijan is in Iran . The Arran/Shirvan north of Aras river had other historical names --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tugrulirmak There are several issues here. First an article on Turkey has no relationship to this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am not interested in that article about Kurds in Turkey, and whatever occurs there, has no bearing here. However, per WP:RS, there are close to 1000 sources in google books/scholars that use "Iranian Azeris", "Azeri Iranians", "Azerbaijani Iranians", "Iranian Azerbaijanis" and etc. So that settles the name of the article. There is also an article called "Iranian Armenians" and Iranian Arabs, it does not mean these people are Persian. It is just like American Arabs where American is the national identity and Arab is the ethno-linguistic identity. Turkey as far as this article is concerned, falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, except I will point out the name Iran has been used continously for around 2000 years, where-as Turkey is a very new name for an old region. A state called Iran has existed on and off, and continously since 500+ years (Safavids) without any break. However, what occurs in a Turkey related wikipedia article needs its own sources which I have not researched and do not want to research, since it is not an article I am interested in.

I did not say religion defines ethnicity, however common holidays (specially religious but also secular such as Nowruz, Chaharshanba Suri, Sizdah Bedar), common national holidays, and common history defines a national identity that is complementary (not contradictory) to any sort of linguistic-identity. So if you are an American citizen, then you are an American Turk or Turkish American.

On the Turkicization of Azerbaijan, the accepted Western theory is that it came through assimilation of the Iranian and nomadic Oghuz nomads. Also it is true the Saljuqs had Persian culture and they were not responsible for Turkicization. However, the nomadic migrants that came to the area, specially after the Ilkhanids and also even in the Safavid era, were part of this component. Overall, like Anatolia, the linguistic Turkicization was not overnight but took many centuries (and it is still ongoing with regards to some former Tat/Talysh villages). Swiecthowski who has written two books on modern Azerbaijan notes that: "The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia. After the Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Azerbaijan became a part of the empire of Hulagu and his successors, the Il- Khans. In the 15th century it passed under the rule of the Turkmens who founded the rival Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Aq Qoyunlu (White Sheep) confederations". Also it was no so fast, it took many centuries from Saljuqs to the mid Safavid era for Azerbaijani-Turkish to be predominant. Even in the 16th century when Elviya Chelebi visits the Caucasus and Maragha, he notes predominance of Persian languages. However, this issue again has nothing to do with the name of the article. If you believe the sources in this article are wrong, you cannot delete them. Also it is a waste of time to discuss them in the talkpage, since it is your WP:OR vs scholarly sources. What you need is equivalent scholarly sources backing up your posiion. When you find sources that agree with say your opinion (e.g. Azeris are pure Oghuz Turks or whatever point you are trying to insert). If these sources meet WP:RS (say written by expert Professors who are neutral (meaning from a major Western university)), then feel free to include them. Else it is back and forth WP:FORUM which has no place in Wikipedia.

On Genetics, you are wrong and there is no conspiracy. Please keep your political opinions for WP:FORUM and if you do not have any factual evidence to backup your statements, then it is not worth discussing. Since wikipedia only understands WP:RS and not WP:OR, or WP:SOAPBOX. The major genetic structure of Middle East, Caucasus and Anatolia has been stable since at least 10000 years ago and the major events/invasions had a small impact relative to the stable population. I'll mention some sources for you to read: A) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Nasidze I, Sarkisian T, Kerimov A, Stoneking M. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12596050 "Previous mtDNA analyses have shown that both Azerbaijanians and Armenians are more closely related genetically to other Caucasus groups than to their linguistic neighbors (Nasizde and Stoneking 2001), which indicates that the Azerbaijanian and Armenian languages were introduced via replacements. .. Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians are genetically more closely related to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere… Thus, all of the genetic evidence agrees that the Armenian and Azerbaijanian languages reflect language replacements, which occurred without any detectable genetic contribution of the original Indo-European and Turkic groups, respectively. "

B) “Another important replacement occurred in Turkey at the end of the eleventh century, when Turks began attacking the Byzantine Empire. They finally conqured Constantinopole (modern Istanbul) in 1453. The replacement of Greek with Turkish was especially significant because this language belongs to a different family—Altaic. Again the genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers and even if they sometimes traveled with their families, the invading populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had along civilization and history of economic development. After many generations of protection by the Roman Empire, however, the old settles had become complacent and lost their ability to resit the dangerous invaders” (Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza , in “Genes, People and Languages”, 2000, pg 152).

C) [3] (discusses the DNA of Persian, Kurd, Azeri, Anatolia and Central Asian, SW people although the sample size is not large).

D) With regards to Anatolia: [4] "high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia"

As per: "You have stated that the Azeris and Persians have a historical link. Yes this is true however the same goes with the link between Azeris and Anatolian Turks for it was the Azeri Turks that lead the way to Selcuq advance in to Anatolia after the Battle of Malezgirt. " Actually, there was no Azeri or Anatolian Turk, nor Azeri-Turkish and Anatolian-Turkish during the time of Saljuqs. There was the term Oghuz or in Persian literature "Turcoman", some of them which mingled with the native Persian population of Azerbaijan to form the modern day Azerbaijanis. However, I did not deny a linguistic link between the Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan and Turkey. There is also a linguistic link between Kurds of Turkey and Persians. But, from everyday culture (where religion plays a big role), and also common history, everyday mentality, holidays, and etc., Azeris in Iran share more with other people in Iran, than say Turkey. This is because of many centuries of common political history. For example, American Anglo-Saxons and English Anglo-Saxons both speak English, but have different national identities. Indeed the American Anglo-Saxon might feel more affinity with an Italian American than say an Anglo-Saxon from Britian. If you disagree fine, because this is not a WP:FORUM and I will not pursue it any further.

The only issue that is important : A) if you disagree with some facts, you have to bring WP:RS, and not WP:OR. Also keep in mind WP:UNDO. B) You want to argue that Azerbaijanis have no Iranian component, and genetically are the same as Central Turks, or are just Oghuz Turks only, then bring your sources. They can be put in parallel in the article if they meet WP:RS. C) Most importantly, as explained, Iranian is a nationality when discussing ethno-linguistic groups in Iran. The context is very clear. So Arab Iranians, Arab Americans and Arab Brazilians are common used term. As per Turkey and Kurds, see:WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have 1000 sources that use "Azerbaijani Iranians" in terms of the complementary notion of ethnicity and national identity. That is sufficient for the name of the article. Any other issue you have with the article, you can only add WP:RS sources. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note on Turkey, that again falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. As per why Greeks did not Turkicize, the ones that converted to Islam mainly did. There is evidence of Greek Muslims from Persian texts in Anatolia (manaqib Aflaki for example). In terms of Turkish-speakers and Persians in Iran, they had a common religion, and language was not a big deal (as linguistic based national identity was never as important as religious identity in the region, even in Turkey until the rise of modern nationalism), so they intermarried. So for example, when Isfahan was the capital of Safavids, there might have been many Turcophone troops there who mixed witht he local Persian population (due to common religion) and adopted the language. In terms of Azerbaijan, the same happened, but we can see for example Persian speaking communities who did not become Turcophone because they are Sunni Shafi'ites and hence do not marry the local Shi'ite Azerbaijani populations. The process of Turkicization of Azerbaijan is described in detail by Planhol (Iran Geography-Iranica) who has researched the issue at length. However, this is not a WP:FORUM, and one can only add WP:RS sources.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)== The Oguz Theory. ==

These sources have been used in the article concerning Azeris in the azerbayjan wikipedia. They are sources which promote the Oguz theory and should be looked in to.

O. Turan, Selcuq History and Turkish-İslamic Civilisations, Ankara, 1965, pages. 214-216 Togan, Azerbaycan Etnografi, Information on the State of Azerbaijan, sayı:150 (1933), pages. 101-107 and number: 18, pages.247-253 İstoriya Azerbaydjana,Bakü,1958,I,s.94-98 Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable sources, see WP:OR and WP:RS. Azeri wikipedia is not a reliable source and Wikipedia does not quote other wikipedias. Rather one needs WP:RS published sources from well known scholars. E.g. some modern Western academic sources from well known universities that claim Azeris are solely Oghuz Turks or like that. . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because these sources are quaoted in another wikipedia does not make them unreliable.And what is the definition of a well known scholar. The scholars quaoted in this article are not heard of by most people. Still... If you want a western reliable sources I suggest you have a look at this . This sources gives a clear example of how Turkomans settled down in what we now call Southern Azerbaijan. It also gives some examples of how the native population was tukufied geneticaly by the masses from not only the selcuq turks but the timur and the mongol invasians brought with them.Tugrulirmak (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It works conversly also. The main point is Wikipedia does not quote Wikipedia, however these sources do not meet WP:RS. They are not written by well known Western sources or cited by mainstream academics. And by all facts, 1933 and even 1965 seem to be outdated.

Outdated? How can a study on the history of the Azeri Turks and their origins be outdated? Origins don't change over night.

The source you brought states in its land line (per professional translation): "Speaking of the Azerbaijan culture originating at that time, in the XIV-XV cc., one must bear in mind, first of all, literature and other parts of culture organically connected with the language. As for the material culture, it remained traditional even after the Turkicization of the local population. However, the presence of a massive layer of Iranians that took part in the formation of the Azerbaijani ethnos, have imposed its imprint, primarily on the lexicon of the Azerbaijani language which contains a great number of Iranian and Arabic words. The latter entered both the Azerbaijani and the Turkish language mainly through the Iranian intermediary. Having become independent, the Azerbaijani culture retained close connections with the Iranian and Arab cultures. They were reinforced by common religion and common cultural-historical traditions.”" It is from the book: "“History of the East” (“Transcaucasia in XI-XV centuries” in Rostislav Borisovich Rybakov (editor), History of the East. 6 volumes. v. 2. “East during the Middle Ages: Chapter V., 2002. – ISBN 5-02-017711-3. http://gumilevica.kulichki.com/HE2/he2510.htm )".

So as you can see it says nothing different than the current article: 1) Turkicization of the local population (Persian population) 2) A massive layer of Iranian (meaning speakers of Iranian languages) took part in the formation of the "Azerbaijani ethnos". This does not support your position that Azeri origin is Oghuz solely. I have no problem with the above sentence from the article Also the proper name for Iranian Azerbaijan is Iranian Azerbaijan. Just like right now I am not calling Turkey as Eastern Greece and Western Armenia/Kurdistan. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"According to Olivier Roy: "The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name “Turkmen”for a long time:" This completely dismisses the Selcuq Turks that were administrating Iran and who stteled in iran. This paragrpah gives the impression that Turks stayed away from Iran which is clearly wrong.Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To add to this no nation or ethnicity is purely of Oguz or whatever Origins ofcourse there are many factors that determine the origin of a nation. However we can not dismiss the huge Turkic influence that was brought by these migrations and invasions. Influences both geneticly and cultraly as well as linguisticly. Therefore i believe all three theories should be briefly expalined and the reader should be guided to the theory they wish to visit. In this article only two theories are given.

Please quote the rest of source: "from the 13th century onwards they “Turkised”the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris". As per genetic influence, you failed to bring a single factual source. Until you understand what WP:RS and WP:NOV means, this is a waste of time. Because this is not a discussion forum, rather you need to show WP:RS instead of WP:OR.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bold text== Opression of Azer Turks in Iran ==

1.The Azeri language is not tought in schools in iran as an optional lesson and the UNHRC has advised Iran to do otherwise this should be added in to the Azeri Status in iran.

2.The article also notes that The Azeris have releative freedom of press and so forth in Iran however Reporters Without Borders ranks Iran 166 out of 169 countries for press freedom.

3.According to Amnesty Internationals report "Ethnic and religious minorities" in the Islamic Republic "remained subject to discriminatory laws and practices which continued to be a source of social and political unrest" this should also be added to Azeri status in Iran. Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Link 1 has nothing about Azeris but the status of Azeri language in Iran is discussed in the article. In Iran, Persian and Arabic is thought in all governmental schools, however private courses for minority languages exists. Link 2 about Press freedom or lack of it, applies to all of Iran, not solely Azeris. Link 3, unless directly about Azeris, cannot be included. -- Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Please give references to proove these minority language courses exist. To add to this we should feature the Iranian treatment of Azeri political figures such as "Mahmud Ali Chereghani, an activist in Tabriz, called for the separation of Azeri provinces from Iran and unification with what he called "North Azerbaijan". His arrest was swift and Tehran's response draconian." this is from iranian.come so you can't realy question its reliablity. Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Also to add to this the arguments about Azeri press freedom may not be wholly true.

"Not far away in his damp, dark two-room apartment I meet Mohammad Rza Lavai, an Iranian Azeri.

As he tries to light the gas stove in his kitchen he tells me he is on the run.

He says he fled Iran in September, claiming he had been persecuted for his ethnicity."

This is sourced from BBC therefore its reliability is very strong.

The article also writes that many Azeris complain their culture and language are being restricted.

To add to this there is NO televisions in Azeri in Iran that is have programmes in Azeri but there is the Sahar TV which whose purpose is to criticise Azerbaijan's policys. It broadcasts to Azerbaijan. This should also be noted. Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Websites like Iranian.com are not reliable for Wikipedia. You seem to not understand what WP:RS is. Please read it again, Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX WP:SOAP. Academic books are WP:RS not websites. For example this is a reliable source about perishment of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey during the Young Turk era: [5]. It is published in the Journal of Genocide Research which is peer reviewed standard Western journal. Iranian radio, TV and books exists in Azerbaijani. As per courses, here is an academic source: 1) Annika Rabo, Bo Utas, “The role of the state in West Asia”, Swedish Research institute in Istanbul , 2005. pg 156. Excerpt:"There is in fact, a considerable publication (book, newspaper, etc.) taking place in the two largest minority languages in the Azerbaijani language and Kurdish, and in the academic year 2004–05 B.A. programmes in the Azerbaijani language and literature (in Tabriz) and in the Kurdish language and literature (in Sanandaj) are offered in Iran for the very first time" . As per televisions in Iran and Azerbaijnai language, you are wrong: [6]. However, youtube cannot be used as a source. Thus, I bring an academic source: "One can purchase newspapers, books, music tapes, and videos in Azerbaijani Turkish and Kurdish, and there are radio and television stations in ethnic areas that broadcast news and entertainment programs in even more languages"(Nikki R. Keddie, "Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution", Yale University Press; Updated edition (August 1, 2006) page 313). The author is a University Professor Nikki R. Keddie [7], not some anonymous webloge. There is an article Ethnic minorities in Iran which covers these issues in more detail, however one has to keep WP:weight. A journalists opinion is not necessarily the scholarly opinion nor are weblogs. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I did not have Youtube as a source where on earth did you get this idea. 2. I had BBC as a source and you have gone and completely ignored it thus prooving my point. 3. The website www.iranian.co.uk is an Iranian therefore reliable... I can't believe how you are blatantly evading a well known fact that Mahmudali Chehregani was indeed arested. To add to this it was not only him but his father too during the reign of the Shah for his "seperatist ideas" 4. The reality of oppresion on Azeri newspapers and cractoonists are clear as day. Please look at my BBC source and not the Youtube one you claim I have posted. Also, feel free to look at this .

Please stop dismissing my sources as being unreliable when they clearly are not. Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When your sources are random websites with authors who lack academic credentials, they they are easily dismissed. Websites such as www.iranian.co.uk do not meet WP:RS. Read the policy, just because the website is Iranian it does not make it reliable. What is important is to establish the relaibility of the author through their scientific and academic crendtials, which you have failed to do so. For example the last author you quote: "Ali M. Koknar is the owner of AMK Risk Management, a private security consultancy with offices in Washington, DC, and Turkey specializing in counterterrorism and international organized crime. ". Not really reliable or neutral WP:NPOV, the guy does not have any academic university credentials. And stop turning this into a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. Terms such as "blatanly evading" are personal attack. I am going by WP:RS and you simply do not understand wikipedia policy. For example the following article on Genocide of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey [8] is published in a peer reviewed academic journal by two professors. On the other hand, your source: [9] (from www.iranian.com which pulishes everything) is written by a person who is graduate student in a non-peer reviewed website. A website is not taken as a reliable source in Wikipedia on contentious matter. Neutrality of the author and their academic credentials, as well as WP:RS play the major role. For example if an author claims Sumerians or Elamites were Turks, we can dismiss them as a loon. So please familiarize with WP:RS. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You did it again! You went straight for www.iranian.com, that is dismissed. Now LOOK AT BBC and the Washington one and stop trying to do a strawman... Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your name.. And stop the personal comments or else you will be reported to the admin. See WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." See also : "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." For example the following article on Genocide of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey [10] is published in a peer reviewed academic journal by two professors. This one the ethnocide of 70,000 Zaza speakers (speak related languages to Kurds/Persian) is published by a Full university professor: "Bruinessen, Martin van (1994). "Genocide in Kurdistan? The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38) and the Chemical War Against the Iraqi Kurds (1988)". In Andreopoulos, George J. Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 141–170. http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Genocide_in_Kurdistan.pdf "

On the other hand what is the academic credential of your sources? One of them even lacks an author. Wikipedia is greatly concerned about academic credential of authors as well as peer-reviewed publications. I did not create the policty, but on controversial topics, news opinions are not sufficiently noteworthy. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please report me to an admin and we will see what his/her opinion is. Now please stop saying that my sources are unreliable but say why they are unreliable. Please show me why BBC is unreliable. Please state which source does not have an author. Does it even need an author? ever heard of editorials "Haretz Editorial" for example. They do not have authors. Please stop trying to creat strawman and actualy fully substantiate how my sources are unreliable. Do this by going through each one.Please stop generalising every source I give you as unreliable, again like said say what makes them so. One by one then and only then can we have a good discussion envoirment.(By the way dismiss www.iranian.com) Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I already did , but you seem to not be hearing it. You seem to think wikipedia is a forum where you can insert websites. It is not , it is an Encycloapedia with its own rulers. Sources must follow WP:RS. I did not say BBC is neccessary reliable or unreliable, it depends on the author of the source. A source without an author is not even to be considered on WP:NPOV matters. WP:RS "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact.".

Haretz Editorial is similar, it depends on the author. See WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." See also : "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." For example the following article on Genocide of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey [11] is published in a peer reviewed academic journal by two professors. This one the ethnocide of 70,000 Zaza speakers (speak related languages to Kurds/Persian) is published by a Full university professor: "Bruinessen, Martin van (1994). "Genocide in Kurdistan? The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38) and the Chemical War Against the Iraqi Kurds (1988)". In Andreopoulos, George J. Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 141–170. http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Genocide_in_Kurdistan.pdf "

On the other hand what is the academic credential of your sources? This is exactly the point. What is their academic credentials? Wikipedia is greatly concerned about academic credential of authors as well as peer-reviewed publications. If you do not understand, then see this WP:RS. Unless you can prove reliability of author (through peer review publications, being noteworthy and journals), then your source is dismissed. So it is not BBC that is unreliable, but rather it is the reliability of authors on controversial topics that is important. Specially a source with no authors have no place in Wikipedia on controversial matter as noted by WP:RS. I am not going to repeat my argument again, but you have failed to establish the reliability of the authors relative to Wikipedia standards WP:RS.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think BBC is an unworthy source please remove the reference to it from the article you or somebody else had made. Now if you want "academic studies" I suggest you look in to this book Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z By James Minahan one of the queotes in the book states "The Azeri language under the Islamic regime was removed from offcial use in all areas, including schools, courts, government offices and the army." Yes the book does say that there can be private lessons but it is limited by that. Let us discuss this book. As well as my source from BBC.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say BBC is unreliable. I said it depends on the author for controversial topics. If a topic is controversial or a controversial assertion is made, specially from a Website news source, then the author's reliability plays an important role. If it is not a controversial topic, "Chinese celebrate new year", then there is no problem. So I asked for proof of reliability of the author but your news report did not have an auhtor, so I dismissed it. As per James Mihanan, again: A)What is the reliability of the author? B) The auhtor is wrong, because Azeri language was never official to be removed by the Islamic government. If something does not have official status in 1979, how it could be removed from official status? C) According to Professor. Nikki R. Keddie of UCLA: One can purchase newspapers, books, music tapes, and videos in Azerbaijani Turkish and Kurdish, and there are radio and television stations in ethnic areas that broadcast news and entertainment programs in even more languages. Reliability of author: [12]. So it is the word of James Mihanan (provide academic credential of the author) vs. a Full professor in UCLA and expert on Middle East/Iran [13]. And direct evidence also suggest Keddie is correct [14] (from official broadcast in Iran). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC even without an author is a reliable source. This is because every article writen before being published undergoes a verification process where the credibility of the article is questioned and the quality of the reporting analysed. All in all there are tough editorial guidelines and standards that should be met . Therefore I donot believe you are correct by saying BBC is unreliable.

Now to the credibility of Mr James Minahan. Mr Minahan has published 6 books all of which are of political researches. He is a free lance writer and reseracher who is currently living in Barcelona. Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor... I can distinctly recall someone saying that all the sources should be of Wstern Origins and having an Iranian professor to reference from does against the very principle someone tried to preach to me. To add to this she was made an honorary fellow of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, all good. However there had been some criticisim directed at the Association.Bernard Lewis founded a rival organization, Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, asserting the MESA "has been politicized to a degree without precedent. This has affected not only the basic studies of language, literature and history, but also has affected other disciplines, notably economics, politics and social science. Given the importance of these regions, there is an acute need for objective and accurate scholarship and debate, unhampered by entrenched interests and allegiances."

Mark T. Clark, professor of political science and director of the National Security Studies Program at California State University at San Bernardino, described MESA as “kind of a closed circle” of people with similar political views.

Franck Salameh (Boston College) charged MESA and its leadership with "group-think," in favor of a "reductionist Arabist paradigm of Middle Eastern history" that attributes all of the "pathologies of the Middle East" to "Western colonialist enterprise."

Yes the expertise area of her reliabilty is ticked however what of the other areas. Such as nuetrality dirived from not having a vested interest. Is that ticked? On the other hand Minahan is a western researcher and writer who has no connections to Iran or an enemy of Iran. I leave the conclusion to you... By the way don't strawman me again, its getting old. Thank you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"There has been conflict with respect to the parlimentary elections as well. In one case the authorities in tehran refused to accept the lgitimately elected Azeri candidate for the paliament. They rejected his credentials and barred gim from taking his seat. This representative, who was elected by very strong vote, promoted secular democratic government in Iran and emphasized ethnic rights within a democratic federal government. He was arrested and spent three years in jail"

This is from a book published by Massoume Price it gives us an indication on how the regime is opressing certain political voices releated to Azeri ethnic rights, therefore this should be added. The writer is credible because:

1.She is an active member of both the Iranian and Canadian communities, Massoume has been living in Canada since 1981.

2.She is a social anthropologist born in Iran and was educated in Iran and United Kingdom at London University, Kings and University Colleges.

3.Since 1995, she has devoted all her time researching Iranian culture and her many articles published in Iran and America have attracted a large audience.

4.Her web site, www.cultureofiran.com, is used extensively as an on-line reference source. The site provides credible information on history, symbolism, evolution and present practices of major Iranian rites, ceremonies festivals and codes of behavior etc. The site has become a focal point for both researchers and general public with respect to Iranian culture.

5.She has been a speaker at a number of functions and organizations such as the "Center for Iranian Research and Analysis" (CIRA) at the University of Toronto and the Anthropology Museum in Vancouver.

6.She has been interviewed by CBC radio with regards to the Iranian New Year (No Ruz) as well as other events and has been a host on Fanny Kiefer's popular talk show, Studio 4 on Shaw cable. She has been extensively involved in organizing lectures, concerts, exhibitions and facilitating exchange and interaction between the Iranians and the Canadian community at large. She is also a commissioner on the Board of Vancouver Museum.

7.She has produced a reference book on the Iranian culture for ABC-CLIO, a major publisher of educational literature in the United States. The book titled, The Diverse People?s of Iran was published in July 2005 and can be viewed at the publisher?s on-line catalogue at the www.abc-clio.com.

8.She has also been a consultant for the Iranian culture series published by Crabtree Books in 2005 in Toronto.

9.She is also a freelance consultant on issues related to Iranian culture and advices and produces material with respect to legal issues related to Iranians in cases such as divorce, child custody and other compensations. . Thank you Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another exelent piece of academic study by Keith Crane. But first I would like to give some background information about him. Keith Crane is director of the Environment, Energy, and Economic Development program at the RAND Corporation. In addition to working on issues within this program, he is also engaged in issues pertaining to China, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and post-conflict nation building. He was a member of the Afghan Study Group in 2007 and in 2006 served on the Economy and Reconstruction Working Group for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. In Fall 2003, Crane served as an economic policy advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. Crane writes extensively on transition issues in policy and academic journals and briefs high-level decisionmakers.He was an adjunct professor in the Department of Economics at Georgetown University in 2001–2002 and in the George Mason University public policy program between 1998 and 2000. He has served as a faculty member of the RAND-UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior and as a Fulbright Professor at the Central School of Planning and Statistics in Warsaw, Poland. Crane received his Ph.D. in economics from Indiana University..

In his book called "Iran's political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities" he says:

"The demands of Iran's Azeri community remain relatively modest focusing on the expansion of cultural freedoms such as local control over Azeri-language broadcasting, greater say in local government and promotion of Azeri langauge at all levels of education, including university instruction."

This clearly indicates that Azeris are not cultraly free as the article claims them to be. They have little to no control over the Azeri-language broadcasting television which is directed by the government. They do not have the amount of say they wish to have in the local government. In addition to this, this Azeri language is not used in all levels of education. This also supports Mr Minahan's points he made conerning the use of Azeri in the education system.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

0) You are correct that Azerbaijani is not thought in all levels of education but this is the case with all of Iran's language except the official language. This is no different than France, Germany or etc. which teach one official language. Or in Turkey, they medium of education is Turkish and in the republic of Azerbaijan, it is not Talysh, Lezgin and etc. So this cannot be considered "Oppression". This point is already mentioned in the article. As per control over "Azeri language broadcast", the government controls broadcast in all languages including Persian, English, Kurdish, Arabic etc. This is not a particular case to Azeris. Now again, lets describe WP:RS.

A) If BBC report has no author or non-reliable for controversial topic, then it is not reliable. Simple as that: see WP:RS. BBC does not meet WP:NPOV as it is a government broadcasted organization on controversial topics with no authors. Here is WP:RS: ""When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." " So I consider that issue as finished. Because news-reports (if the author is reliable) needs to be attributed to the author, if there is no author, then fortget it. Self-promotion from a website itself does not make it a reliable. Unless you show who the author of the report is, and show he is reliable, then it is a moot point. It is not worth discussing and the source can easily be removed due to authorless source. + In his book called "Iran's political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities" he says:

B) James Mihanan does not even have a Ph.D. Note: "He is a free lance writer and reseracher who is currently living in Barcelona". Websites that self-promote authors (say good stuff about them) are not reliable if the reviews are not in independent journal pulications. Plus as I showed you what he states contradicts a Full Professor with Ph.D. from UCLA. And it is factually wrong, "Azeri" was never official in 1979 to begin with for to lose official status. Free lance writer without a Ph.D. making a false claim that Azeri was official before 1979. Sorry, I do not see how that is reliable. + "The demands of Iran's Azeri community remain relatively modest focusing on the expansion of cultural freedoms such as local control over Azeri-language broadcasting, greater say in local government and promotion of Azeri langauge at all levels of education, including university instruction."

C) Masoume price, her own website mentions she has no academic position: "She is also a freelance consultant on issues related to Iranian culture and advices and produces material with respect to legal issues related to Iranians in cases such as divorce, child custody and other compensations.". Self-promotion through websites is not reliable criterion for an author. Authors can write anything on their webpage. Actually Professor. William Beeman has clearly stated Chehregani is a separatist (contradicting Masoume Price). Again Masoume Price has no academic position.D) In Wikipedia, the strongest sources win. Nikki R. Keddie is considered Western source as she is a full professor in UCLA. Her ethnic origin does not matter as she is part of a major Western university as a Full Professor (not a lecturer but Full professor). Wikipedia is not concerned about ethnic origins of authors but rather their reliability which I assess based on their academic credentials and affiliation with major universities. Specially Full Professor triumphs over say a free-lance writer. There is nothing to challenge her reliability. Your point about MESA has no bearing on it. MESA is a big organization, and she did not create it. Her resume shows she is a Full professor [15]. Mihanan does not even have a Ph.D. (and what he states about official is factually wrong). Massoume price is also a free-lance writer, and consequently no reliable academic position. William Beeman for example contradicts her.

E) As per MESA, hundreds of Professors are members of it.. Criticism of MESA by Bernard Lewis has no bearing on the credibility of the authors who are members of MESA [16]. The issue of Israel-Palestine conflict has made MESA a target by Lewis, but this is not even the area of Nikki R. Keddie in the first place, and the criticsm on MESA has no bearing on her field of study. Bernard Lewis too has been criticized by many. However, when it comes to writing history and professional opinions, he is a full affiliated Profesor like Nikki R. Keddie, and there is no problem in quoting him. - F) Besides Nikki R. Keddie, I provided another source:"Carina Jahani, "State control and its impact on language in Baluchistan" in Annika Rabo, Bo Utas, “The role of the state in West Asia”, Swedish Research institute in Istanbul , 2005. pg 156. Excerpt:"There is in fact, a considerable publication (book, newspaper, etc.) taking place in the two largest minority languages in the Azerbaijani language and Kurdish, and in the academic year 2004–05 B.A. programmes in the Azerbaijani language and literature (in Tabriz) and in the Kurdish language and literature (in Sanandaj) are offered in Iran for the very first time"

Carina Jahani is also a Full professor at a Western university [17].   

G) Rand corporation is a neo-conservative organization and the author you cited does not have any real academic position in any university at a Professor level. Hardly a WP:NPOV source. I also note about Rand organization that: " It is currently financed by the U.S. government,". Conclusion: So as you can see, Mihanan has no Ph.D., Masume Price has no university position. MIhanan contradicted by two full Western university Professors. Masume Price again no academic position contradicted by William Beeman. The guy from Rand organization is simply a policy analyst for a neo-con organization and hardly can be considered neutral WP:NPOV. And finally, BBC without any author fails WP:RS as the first thing that is needed for a news website according to WP:RS is the reliability of the author. - For example the following article on Genocide of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey [18] is published in a peer reviewed academic journal by two full professors (not some sort of lecturers affiliated with universities). But on the other hand, the authors you bring are free-lance writers and an authorless news-source.

For example the following article on Genocide of 350,000 Kurds in Turkey [19] is published in a peer reviewed academic journal by two full professors. Now how can this be contrasted to a person that is a free-lance writer (in non-academic non-peer review publication) or a person belonging to a rival government think-tank for example cannot be considered neutral WP:NPOV relative to another government. Just like for example one does not quote North Korean think thanks about US government actions as neutral references. I would seriously read WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. I brought two Full professors about the status of Azeri language in Iran, in order to challenge it, you need similar high quality soruces. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For example here is a news-report: [20]. Now at least it has an author and one can attribute a quote to the author. The overall picture is: "Azerbaijani Turkish (like all other non-Persian languages except Arabic) is not thought in elementary, middle and high school. There are university sources. At the same time, media, books, newspapers, radio and publications exist. The media like any language is controlled by the government". However, the statement of Mihanan that Azeri was official in 1979 and lost that status is false. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that most countries do not use a secondary language as a medium of teaching. However it is also true that most coutries have well-established optional courses where the language that is intended on being studied can be studied. However I have been presented no such evidence that indicates iran follows such a government policy. Students can not be educated in their language unless under private tuition. The BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen by the BBC Trust. This means your comment about BBC being unreliable due to it being a government institiution is incorrect. The identity of the author is strong base to form a decision concerning reliabilty, yes. However the publisher which in this case is BBC is also a strong indicator of reliability. Wikipedia article on Identifying Reliable Sources states "Mainstream news sources are generarly considered to be reliable". Therefore you point on this discussion concerning BBC ending is void. BBC is as credible as the sources noted in the article. The website concerning James Mihanan said no good thing about him. The website gave explanatory statements that just said "he is a freelance researcher and writer" "living in Barcelona". I do not see how you can atribute this informative explanation as promoting the author. Even though he statement about azeri being "officialy removed" is ill worded his point still remains strong. Azeri is not used in governmental institutions such as courts, army, schools and so one. This is crucial and should be added. To add to this your argument on Masoume having no academic position is clearly a very misguided comment. This is because her website clearly states that she is a social anthropologist born in Iran and educated in Iran and at London University, Kings and University Colleges.Not only this but she is a member of the "Centre for Iranian Research and Analysis" (CIRA). Both of these aspects of her career help boost the reliabilty of her views. In addition to this she is an Iranian, this means she is not likely to have a vested interest which intern raises her credibility.Lastly her books were published by ABC-CLIO major publisher of reference works for the study of history and social studies. In the Wikepedia article Reliable sources it states that the publisher as well as the author are very important. In this case both the publisher and the writer are reliable. Nikki R Keddie is not a western source because she is not of a western descent. I do not wish to discriminate on ethnicity but the role ethnicity plays is very crucial in determining the writers reliability. Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A) Ethnicity plays no role for reliability in Wikipedia. Infact, recently Armenian/Azeri conflict authors who have pointed out ethnicity of authors have been severly sanctioned by admins. In Wikipedia, the ethnicity of the author plays no role in determination of the he reliability of source. See WP:RS (ethnicity of author is not mentioned). So your personal opinion on this matter is not Wikipedia policy. What matters is the quality of academic institution and publications in peer-reviewed international (not regional) journals. And also the fact that if the author has been criticized by many others of repute or authors who have higher repute.

B) Mihanan has no academic credentials (even not a Ph.D.) and his book is too general (not about Iran). Furthermore, everyone knows Persian is the official language of Iran as it has been for a 1000+ years. Thus in official settings, Persian is used and this cannot be considered an "Oppression", as neither are 50+ languages/dialects in Iran considered as official languages or used in official settings. For example, one does not use Turkish in the Germany army or Armenian in the Turkish army. Either way, you failed to provide evidence that Mihanan is reliable author for controversial matters. The statement of Mihanan that Azeri was official in 1979 and lost that status is false. There is nothing to discuss here as this is a falsification and shows clearly the lack of quality in the source.

C) Masoume Price has no academic position means that she is not a Professor at any known universites or writes in peer-reviewed journals. The CIRA is just her own firm and orginization. Nothing related to say UCLA or UPsala universities. She is a free-lance writer. ABC-CLIO major is not a university affiliated publisher but a private held company. Note WP:RS states: "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". Both cases fail here, since a publisher is a not peer-reviewed press and ABC-CLIO is not an academic press.

D) As per BBC, WP:RS: ""When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." And also: "Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable. Several news sources have reputations for—and have sometimes admitted to—either incomplete or biased coverage, a failure to do due research, and, in egregious cases, complete falsification of some stories. Even for reputable sources, there are various articles which may not be reliable. Having corroborating sources increases the chance the information is reliable, but beware of the practice of "churnalism", especially in print media. Prioritise sourcing to news agencies above other news sources.". If you cannot provide the author of the piece, then it is useless because per WP:RS: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting.". Note the statement: WP:RS When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the authorWP:RS. So this is necessary that the author should at least be known. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable. Indeed it doesn't however being a professor does not make the said source automatically reliable either. Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.". - On the side note I did not find any information that Nikki Keddie is an Iranian [21]. "I was born in Brooklyn, and attended the City and Country School and Horace-Mann Lincoln High School in Manhattan before going to Radcliffe College, (Magna cum laude, Modern European History and Literature, elected to Phi Beta Kappa in junior year)." Not that ethnicity of author matters, but she would be of Western descent. Also the phrase: "Iranian Profesor" does not mean a Professor that is Iranian, but rather it could mean a Professor that studies Iranian history/culture/etc. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of Oppression

I had to start a new section because it was getting too hard for me to navigate. I believe we should also start a new section in the article also called "Claims of Cultural Supression" or something along those lines and here is the reason why.

The volume of claims concerning cultural suppression is too great to undermine. Here is an example of some from UNHRC

Azeri-rights protesters demand Khatami apology

Detentions after Azeri rights chants disrupt Iran rally

Ethnic Azeri bloggers imprisoned in Iran

Relatives say ethnic Azeri activist held without charge in Iran

Iranian group concerned over detained Azeri activists

According to a September 1997 HRW report on Iran

Parliamentary Assembly Of Council Of Europe -Education with mother tounge-

This is just the tip of the ice berg if you want me to put of Reports from the European parlementary commision I shall gladly do so. But do you see my point on the amount of claims. Our job is to present these claims to the reader also and let them decide. If you think this should no be so please explain. Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.". - On the side note I did not find any information that Nikki Keddie is an Iranian [21]. "I was born in Brooklyn, and attended the City and Country School and Horace-Mann Lincoln High School in Manhattan before going to Radcliffe College, (Magna cum laude, Modern European History and Literature, elected to Phi Beta Kappa in junior year)." Not that ethnicity of author matters, but she would be of Western descent. As per the sources you brought from above, it is again news organizations without authors. All of them from "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" but no authors were mentioned. Wikipedia is not a place for piling up random news source. For example, one does not fill the article on Kurds in Turkey with thousands of reports from various new sources. For example one of your newsreports states: "Aside from the language demand, the protesters were critical of a YouTube video that purports to show Khatami, a reformist former president who initially signaled a desire to challenge incumbent Mahmud Ahmadinejad in the coming June election before pulling out of the race, making a joke about ethnic Azeris.". This cannot be considered an oppression (and note WP:synthesis and WP:OR where your opinion won't account unless the source describes it as an oppression". Please write a coherent sentence or paragraph with reliables sources (that have reliable academic authors). Then a counter-balance viewpoint can also be inserted. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have provided you many sources here from well established news agencys to people who are independent researchers as well as European Parlimentary Council and the UNHRC. The weight of evidence is too greate to not include these claims under a section that could be called "claims" so we atleast present two sides of the argument as well as increasing the nuetrality of the article. If you had noticed since the start of this discussion I have been very negotiative and co-operative however you have refused to buge an inch from your predetermined stance. I believe if these claims are not included the nuetrality of the article will be in question and we, the editors will not be able to move on to a better article. If you still do not agree please call in an administrator and we will see what he/she thinks. This discussion can not progress with only 2 people discussing. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are adding your own WP:OR as specially 2004 is not old and you would need a source stating the terminology is wrong. The author of the 2004 book uses the term which is sufficient that the term exists and thus is included in Wikipedia. The other author is a giant orientalist. The second book might be talking about early 20th century but the terminology he uses are modern terminologies, else even the term "Azerbaijani" would not have been used in 1905-1920 for the ethnicity, where-as it is used throughout the book as well.
• As per European Parlimentary Council and UNHCR, the sources you brought previous were not from UNHCR, they are from Radio Free liberty without any author. As long a source can be attributed to a reliable academic author, I have no problem with it. Else their attribution must be to the organization. However, isolated incidents cannot be generalized to be a mass phenonemon and must also be evaluated against WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I brought higher quality sources Nikki. R. Keddie (which is not Iranian as you claimed) and Carinja Jahani about current linguistic situation. As long as your sources do not violate the weight requirement in WP:NPOV, and are not WP:FRINGE, and can be attributed to a reliable author, then there is no problem. Thus new sources cannot be generalized to all of Iranian Azeri community. Just because there is minority of separatist (e.g. Chehregani), does not mean all Iranians Azeris have such mentality. I am not here to waste my time with discussion, but if a source has no author and is a news commentary without author, it has no place in controversial topic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources from the European Council are not even remotely linked to that of UNHRC. Secondly there is other sources that support these claims here are some from Amnesty International (I am sure you know who they are):

Iran: Continuing crackdown against peaceful critics

This makes it clear that peacefull activits are being detained by the iranian authorities for expressing their freedom of expression. Now please do try to discuss the reliabilty and the validity of this source.

"In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists." This indicates not only Azeri civil society and political activits are target of the Iranian regime but other ethnic minorities and religious groupings.

Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To add to this the report made by UNHCHR also supports the claims made by previous sources and I suggest you give it a read. It includes many statements which have not been answered in this article Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are not aware I have discussed the changes I wanted to make and i recieved no objections. therefore I caried them out. the sources presented are from reliable sources, coming from human rights watch dogs. I do not think what i have writen is my POV as it is backed up by the above nuetral and reliable sources. I have also been very nuetral myself due to the fact that i have included such words like "claims" and "supression" rather than oppression in the title. I have also made the reader aware of some issues surrounding some aspects. Please discuss any changes you wish to make in the talk page before you delete them as this falls under vandalism. Thank you.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed the changes that I made and I got no objections, please actualy check the talk page before executing such an action. To add to this the "fringe" figure (this is your opinions) could be isolated and deleted with a discussion from the article. Not only did you delete the whole thing you done so without a discussion. Please bide by your own rules and actualy discuss the topics at hand. Do not delete text as this is classed and vandalism. I will be resolving this matter with the help and insight of other administrators very promtly indeed. Thank you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on academic and peer-reviewed publications, not random authoress opinion pieces. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:Fringe, and WP:Soap and get a clear WP:Consensus before attempting to reintroduce selective controversial poorly-sourced material into the article again. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Kurdo777. Note the reason I ignored Tugrulirmak's latest comments is because he systematically fails to understand WP:RS and attribution to academic author. He just brings authorless and irrelevant sources like this: Parliamentary Assembly Of Council Of Europe -Education with mother tounge-[22], which is actually from a representative of the republic of Azerbaijan which has inflated numbers and is proposing something that does not exist in his own country. With the exception of that totally irrelavent and non-academic source, the rest are authorless sources. Bringing authorless sources where as Wikipedia WP:RS mentions sources should be attributed to an author (if there is a disagreement). Tugrulimak takes statements from an authorless website and presents it as a fact. In short my objections are: 1) Objection to authorless sources with no secondary/academic WP:RS to verify it. Sources need to be attributed to authors but this was not done, making it seem like a fact. For example, the Amnesty international source claims that "The Iranian constitution allows schooling in the medium of non-Persian languages", this is simply false and direct contradiction of article 15 of the constitution where the medium of education is supposed to be in the official language (Persian). And Iran is not the only country with such a rule, just look at virtually most of the neighbors. Or in the US, officially funded government school educate in the medium of English. So who is making this wrong statement in AI? Its author is not known, so the sources lack quality. 2) The importance of heaping tons of authorless websites to the topic at hand which covers centuries is not shown. Reliability of the sources are not shown based on WP:RS criterion. 3) Wikipedia:Attack page and WP:WEIGHT. The issue is already covered in "Ethnic status in Iran" and the title and section introduced by Turugmalik is redundant. For example putting a whole paragraph on a obscure separatist like Chehregani is definitely WP:fringe. 4) For example when discusses Greek Genocide in Turkey, there are hundreds of academic soruces/books and not for example, a random authorless website. Claim of cultural suppression, rather than ambivalence (by the current government) needs a detailed source. There is no detail in the statement. I brought a statement from Professor. Nikki R. Keddie of UCLA: "One can purchase newspapers, books, music tapes, and videos in Azerbaijani Turkish and Kurdish, and there are radio and television stations in ethnic areas that broadcast news and entertainment programs in even more languages". She has a detailed and balance section on minorities in Iran. So when someone has a new section "claim of cultural supression" and is referencing just authorless websites, they need to prove exactly on what points is there a "cultural supression" according to WP:RS] source. Else it is generalization without coherency and substance. The only one I can think of is that, only Persian and Arabic are throught in primary schools in Iran, but private schools and university courses exist for any language. This is actually a 1000+ year tradition of Iran where despite many languages, the teaching languages were always Persian and Arabic. Else there is no other advantage that the majority Persian speakers enjoy relative to minorities, and for example a Shi'i Azeri can be a supreme leaders (as of now) but a Sunni Persian from Lar or Khorasan, can't get a government position. So with the exception of this sole case, any other sort of opression applies to all Shi'ites of Iran regardless of linguistic background. In terms of economy actually, the Azerbaijani provices are ahead of the rest and also in terms overall economy, the Bazar (nerve center of economics) is mainly run by Azeris. I think all these things can be mentioned in ethnic status section without a new section. So unless there is details (not authorless websites) about this "cultural suppression" in terms of laws, I am afraid it does not belong to the article. Because the authorless websites make a sweeping and generalized statement, which should at least be made from a person with an academic background and not an authorless website. Also why is there a new section: "Claims of Cultural Suppression" when already there is an "ethnic status" section? Again experience shows that the user will repeat some random authorless websites which provide no detail and then include his own [[WP:RS]. However, I mentioned one should look to Western academic sources (specially Full Professors) with no political interest and connections, Nikki R. Keddie is one of the view who has research this issue in balance in her book modern Iran. She has a whole section on the subject and summarizes many different things coherently. The book has also been peer review. On the other hand, Tugrulirmak thinks this is a forum for cut&pasting random websites with no authors. So given the contradiction between what Tugrulirmak has posted from authorless websites and what a Western academic speciallizing in modern Iran with a rank of Full Professor has said, I believe the revert of him was the right action. Again, claim of "cultural suppression" should also indicate that the majority of Azerbaijanis in Iran feel that way, which current reports indicate they do not [23]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Authorless sources... When will you understand that reports published by international organisations such as Amnesty International, UNHRC and HRW do not have authors. There are conducted by a group of academics. I will keep persuing this article untill the end and will post, weather you respond or not. I will also have other third partied (i have already invited some) who can actualy review the sources i have presented without the detrimental of being an Iranian (thus a side) presents on ones nuetrality. We will see then weather my sources are reliable and weather you and alike are just denying exper analysis of the current situation. mind you the sources you give are no better. for example out of date books or books that talk about 70 years ago to 110 years. I believe it is called WIKI:Stale. To add to this the constitution saying such and such does not mean it takes place. All in all i find this discussion futile for you and others who are of Iranian origin deny any source i give with an already set frame of mind. I have called third partied and we will see what happens then. Thank you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please watch WP:Attack, referening to users' ethnic background and claiming they are bias because of it, is a personal attack. This is to note that the Azerbaijan-Armenia arbcom takes this issue very seriously and so you just have been warned about mixing user's background into the discussion. Concentrate on the discussion. Your atuhorless sources are not conducted by a group of academics and you are incorrect. I have a problem when AI contradicts an academic Professor from UCLA who is a full professor. AI sometimes simply obtain information which is not verifiable and publish it. That is why one of them contains a gross mistake about the constitution of Iran and makes a false statement with its regard. For example, your PACE source was from a representative of a rival country and does not mention anything about suppression. Your devoting a whole paragraph to chehregani is WP:Fringe. Whereas in Wikipedia, strong sources WP:RS are academic professor level sources, not authorless ones. Also I do not see any books from 110 years ago, I see one from 1968 and one from 2004. If you have a problem with terminologies of two major Professors, then you need equivalent WP:RS discussing that terminology and dismissing it. I also think the discussion is futile as long as you do not read basic guidelines. I believe a book discussing the overall situation (on the section of ethnic status) in several pages or a chapter, is much more WP:RS than a authorless website. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)