Talk:Iranian peoples

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Iranian people

I think the article is fine and defines the group clearly. It does mention on top that it is about speakers of Iranian languages. Therefore I don’ think Azeri people are left out. It is mentioned in the top section how this group is primary defined by their usage of Iranian languages. Also the section when the groups are listed, clearly says “languages”

I am an Iranian and I know very well the importance of Azeri contribution to Iranian history and culture but I don’t think it is unfair that they are not included in this article as it is not about nation of Iran rather about Iranian speakers. Azeris might not be Turks, I personally think of them as 100% Iranic, but their language is and this article’s primary focus is on language. Also we can not merge this with Iranian languages since this article is not about those languages but the speakers of those languages. I think Ethnic and cultural assimilation section takes care of the issue of culture and explains that there are groups whose language is not Iranian but everything else about them is. Also, I would love to know the opinion of Azeri Iranians on this issue. thanks Gol 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dear Gol, firstly, welcome back. Secondly, Most of the Iranian Azeris voted above have both academic and Iranian concerns about the wrong use of the term "Iranian peoples" as in this article. The editors, wanted to create something of a linguistic importance, the same as Germanic and Turkic peoples. But we do not have such a thing in established academic texts. So they borrowed a term, which already has a meaning by itself, i.e. "Iranian peoples" and used it. I am not sure what else they could use. But definitely, not "Iranian peoples" which means not the same. We can not invent a meaning here for a term. We really have to look into known university textbooks and see what they use for this grouping of people. Or else, we have to define the way "Iranian peoples" is understood by all. That includes Iranian Turks. I am still waiting for the opposing parties to inclusion of Azeris to come up with some reliable university references where exact term of "Iranian peoples", and not anciant Iranian peoples and no debatable indications, as we are talking about anciant and contemporary people here. None has been provided yet. I shall be convince as well as other Iranian Azeris if we have a number of those texts presented to us using the exact terminology as defined here. No internet back links as it seems that a trend of many interenet info pages using Wikipedia and that will be self referencing. 203.48.45.194 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please list all references to the usage of the term "Iranian Peoples"

Editors,

This is a friendly request in order, to at least convince myself, for all who think the article is defining the term right, please list all reliable references that use the exact term of Iranian peoples with at least one example with full sentence that indicate the definition explained in this article and in this context, i.e. in a linguistic terms, from academia here. Please only list from univeristy text books and well established encyclopedias like Britanica. I am sure you will have plenty as you are fighting so hard to keep the name of the article as is. To me it is simply wrong, Iranian peoples are not only speakers of Iranian languages and has a much broader meaning.

If you have any comments or discussions, or like some you think the matter is too obvious (either way) for all but to me, please add an extra section and do not mix this section with discussion. However, if you think one listed is not as reliable, you could strike it like this, with a very short comment next to it.

Links are fine so long as they are links to reliable sources as above. Also, please not cite any internet encyclopedias as they mostly copy from Wikipedia and it is self referencing to mention them. And Gee how many of them...

Thanks 203.48.45.194 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussions and Comments on the reference list on "Iranian peoples"

Please add your detailed comments and discussions here.

I personally think, ther term Iranian peoples has a much broader meaning. It seems to me that editors were looking for a term such as Turkic or Germanic and they opted this term as they did find or could not come up with similar words to Turkic or Germanic. I think, Iranian peoples are who have lived in Iran and have been known as Iranians at different stages of history and those who are greatly associated with Persian and Iranian identity and culture. That definitely includes great many Iranians of modern Iran as well as members of Iranian community for the past melleniums. Well Azeris and Iranian Turkic people are members of both historical Iranian peoples and modern Iranian peoples. That is why I thought it was not acceptable to exclude them in the article by such name. As repeated by myself and many above, it is not only nationality. It is a metter of identity. If you go back to Nader Shah Afshar and ask him if he was a Turk, he would definitely say yes. But if you also asked him if he was Iranian, he would definitely say yes. If you and ask the a Western king and asked him at that time who Nader Shah was, he would also say, Nader Shah was a Persian King. I believe the same would be in acadmeic texts as well. So I am asking people if they know reliable reference saying otherwise, i.e. defining the term exactly and solely on "Speakers of Iranian languages", repeatedly and in reliable university text books and well established academic records, then be it. But if not, then why so much insisting on borrowing a term from known lexicon of English language and confuse people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 May 2006.

It is masteries!!! The supreme leader of Iran is an Azeri but Azeri doesn’t list as Iranian people.(Sampa 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Grandmaster this discussion is not your business. you are not Iranian people you are a Turk or Arrani. Then get out of this page.

The articles on Wikipedia are not owned by anyone, including yourself. Everyone has a right to edit any page. And yes, I’m not Iranian, I’m an Azeri and this issue has a direct relevance to me. Grandmaster 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not Azari or Azeri! Azari is some one whose mother and father are Azarbaijani( the real Azarbaijan not fake Republic of Azerbaijan). You are arani.

Very nice. You invented a new ethnicity, congrats. Grandmaster 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you threat me. Little GRANDMASTER if you are too brave why don’t you capture your occupied land from Armenian!

Please stop threats, and invent one convincing argument why we should redefine term Iranian Peoples from accepted scientific usage to what you just created in your head abdulnr 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Iranian peoples" (or more correctly: Iranic peoples) are a group of more or less related peoples who speak related languages and share (more or less) a common history, heritage, and culture.

While Azeris are deffinitly Iranic by culture and heritage, they are not Iranic by language - the most important factor. Therefore, there is no need to mention them in this article. Of course, this does not count for the historical "Azaris" who spoke the Iranic language known as "Azari". I think that these historical "Azaris" should be mentioned, along with other extinct Iranic peoples such as Skythians or Parthians.

However, peoples like Hazaras or Chahar Aimaq should be mentioned in this article, because they are Iranic by language, though not necessairily Iranic by heritage (they're probably Turko-Mongols).

Tajik 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. With your definition other Iranian (Iranic) peoples like Alans, Ossetians should not be mentioned because they do not belong to Persian civilizatin neither Hazaras should not be because they are Mongolian. Don't you think that Ossetians will feel dejected by not being included into your arbitrary definition. The bast solution is either to work on Turko-Iranian article or Peoples influenced by Iranian civilization article. Remember, that it is Iranian Peoples (plural) we are talking about NOT Iranian people (nation). This has gone for too long, and people still are confused. abdulnr

Well, guys, since there is no consensus, I thought, it would be better to stick to only acadmic sources rather than any opinionative speculations. So basically stick to Wikipedia's policy, no research but source an explanation. If no proof exist for the use of Iranian peoples for only ethno-linguistic grouping, then Iranian peoples should talk about Iranian peoples rather than speakers of Iranian languages. If it does, then be it and we stick to the way the article is. No editor in Wikipedia is here to do research or to push a POV, even a POV is supported by majority or all.

We all know Azeris speak Turkic now and sometime did not. We all know sensitivities of the issue. Please refrain from treating each other with respect and avoid non academic discussions.

All I am asking is for proof for the way "Iranian peoples" is used in the way in this article describes as on "ethno-linguistic" and primarily linguistic. If no such reference exist, we should move the contents of this article to an article by a name such as "speakers of Iranian languages" and link this page to Iranian demographics or include Azeris. 203.48.45.194 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well regarding the academic sources that discuss the Iranian peoples they are varied and often go hand in hand with discussion of Iranian languages. Besides the various sources listed in the article there are these, which do not mention the Azeris as an Iranian people, but one does mention the ancient Azaris and, as Tajik correctly commented, they can be discussed in the article and listed as an ancient Iranian people as well:

The Iranian Peoples of the Caucasus

Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples

Iranian peoples

"Buddhism among Iranian Peoples" in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.2: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Ehsan Yarshater (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 949-964. This refers to mostly the people of Afghanistan and Central Asia who are not, obviously, from the area of modern Iran.

From Scythia to Camelot-Here the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans are referred to as Iranian peoples.

The Scythians-Same here.

Various articles in issues of Archaeology Magazine refer to Iranian peoples and their definition corresponds to language usage. For example, I have the issues that discuss the Amazons (as a Sarmatian Iranian people) and issues discussing the Scythians, again an Iranian people. Also, the term Iranic is often used by academics as an alternative just to avoid confusion with the term Iranian peoples, which many misconstrue as a reference only to Iran, when it really is a reference to the Iranic peoples including the Persians, Kurds, Pashtuns, etc. So aside from the Azaris, we really can't discuss any other groups without significantly veering away from common usage. Tombseye 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Problems of including Azeris

Many have argued for the inclusion of the Azeris, while not comprehending what Iranian peoples means and I argued that if this took place, the Kurds would be claimed by the Turks since there would no longer be any defineable criteria. Well check out Talk:Kurdish people and the nonsense that was said there:

That's to say, Kurds are of Turkic origin who mixed with Iranian people.The only diffrence between Kurds and Azeris is that Kurds are a litte bit more mixed with Iranians.Turkish and Kurdish nations must live in peace at Anatolia as they have done for centruies.

Note how similar this rhetoric is to the demands of including the Azeris as an Iranian people. I would like to make clear that none of us who don't want the Azeris included are interested in separatism (at least not that I know of) in the national sense. It is however highly dubious that the Azeris can be included without question as the evidence is conjectural. And if they are, then I see no reason as to why the Turks can't include the Kurds as a Turkic people who adopted an Iranian language since it will no longer matter. Tombseye 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets not bring discussions on other pages here and limit ourselves to academic sources. We can not sacrifice the facts for discussions and rhetorics going elsewhere. You also make the same assumptions again. Azeris claims to be Iranian has nothing to do with their current citizenship. (Some might mention it though, I do not). It has a mellenium long history and Shahs of Iran were all Turkic speaking in the past half a mellenium, except two last ones and Zand dynasty. There is a huge difference between Kurds in Turkey and Turks in Iran. I do not see any parallel there.

By the way, thanks for the sources mentioned above. Speaking of references is more acadmeic approach, I believe rather than side issues such as Kurdish pages, tec. So lets do that. Will go throught them one by one and discuss them later and hopefully we all come to the similar understanding.I will get back to you on that later. I believe they great sources. But they do not claim this is the whole list of Iranian peoples and here is the list of Iranian peoples: 1, 2, blah blah and no one else. And some talk about Iranian peoples in anciant times when Iranians did not speak Turkic at all. Iranian Turks emerged since thousand years ago. If this article only talks and assumes all Iranian people groups before then. Then ok. be it. But this article claims more than than. 203.48.45.194 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very relevant simply because if people can be claimed based upon arbitrary interpretations of history then the articles are meaningless. By the way, you're a sockpuppet and it's been confirmed here. So, at this point, your opinion has really lost a lot of credibility and the vote stacking makes your votes null and void. The article has made all the concessions necessary at this point, as the Azeris are mentioned in various sections and I will add discussion of the ancient Azaris myself and leave it at that. The simple reality is that the Azeris can't be proven, without a doubt, to be mostly the descedents of an Iranian people because it's also possible that they are a Caucasian people and there is a small element of Turkic admixture as well that is unknown in terms of size. Or they could be a combination, but we don't know for certain. And nitpicking my sources doesn't make a difference really. Professor Carole A. O'Leary Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Global Peace Adjunct Professor, School of International Service at American University's article [1] discusses the Iranian peoples as well. At this point, the discussion is over as many concessions have been made. The end. Tombseye 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So this IP voted 3 times? That’s a clear violation of the Wiki rules. Grandmaster 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed and since this person was the one who initiated this 2nd round of contention and acted dishonestly, I see no reason humor to him. Tombseye 04:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was an obvious attempt to cheat and forge the results of voting. Grandmaster 04:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how confirmed it is that those guys did sucketpuppeting!!! But I do not. My IP address belongs to a company of more than 800 people and there are a few Persians and Azeris around. To be honest with you, I only know one of them.

If you do not like civil discussions and like arguments, then Wikipedia is yours. I will be leaving it to you guys... Goodbye and hope you enjoy your arguments. 203.48.45.194 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the person who reported my IP address as suspected sucketpuppet, he himself is on probation on Iranian and Persian related topics. See here 203.48.45.194 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So what if he is? It does not change the fact that your IP was used by 3 different accounts to vote. Grandmaster 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

203.48.45.194, I'm not banned from Iran-related articles. SouthernComfort and Aucaman are. Check again. —Khoikhoi 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of speculations and Tombseye has already decided it was a confirmed case!!!

I am myself, Persian Magi, who did not start the voting, but added a deadline in voting, and has been quiet due to being busy for the last week or two. Not sure, how, who an if one or more people are sharing the same IP addresses as mine. I work for a big company and quiet a few Iranians, Turks and even people of former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan work here. We can organize a lezgi dance every Friday night here. Some are great arguers. Phew... Persian Magi 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Very convincing. I’m also waiting for your another account Gharib Ghorbati to come up with a similar story. And what was this [2] ? Grandmaster 11:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What speculation? I'm not the one who investigated the matter. At any rate, the entire process is suspect and I believe we can come to some concensus now that some of the subterfuge has been uncovered. Tombseye 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you even argue over not including them? i would like to know if anyone here has ever been to either east or west azarbaijan? not every azari is turkish, let alone speaks turkish. my whole family is from east azarbaijan, and we are all azari's yet not turks. we speak persian. azari in Iran means you are from the provinces of east and west azarbaijan. and before you respond, please let me know what part of azarbaijan you have been to, i would love to hear from people who know what they're talking about. Rugsnotbombs 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia entry on Azerbaijani people

See this: "The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" --ManiF 06:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So? It’s still Turkic-speaking people, isn’t it? Grandmaster 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Encyclopedias have similar definitions for Azerbaijani people. So it should mentioned in the article that Azerbaijani people are a Turkic-speaking people of Persian culture. --ManiF 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is already there. Please see [3] Grandmaster 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be stated more boldly. Shervink 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Agreed -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've got the Azeris mentioned as a group that is sometimes referred to as culturally Iranian AND the Azaris and others are mentioned and the Azeris are discussed in the cultural assimilation section, can we agree that the matter is closed? Mentioned on 3 separate occassions in the article has given the Azeris quite a bit of coverage that some of the known Iranian peoples haven't received. Cheers. Tombseye 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have done a great service - and the matter should be closed. all is mentioned, and mentioned in the article many times. I suggest if similar discussions arise in the future - they should be referred to the archivee of the talk page abdulnr 00:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps and hidden ancient/contemporary non-Iranic languages

The maps provided in the article only shows geographical extent of Iranic languages but has a wrong impression that the only languages spoken in this geographical area were/are Iranic. It is in no way true. Both in ancient times and even now there have been/are many non-Iranic languages spoken by large populations in this area. For example in the modern map of Iranic languiages both Azeri and Arabic areas are shown as Iranic-speaking area. No mention of non-Iranics. It is highly misleading. It should be corrected or clarified.Togrol 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable claims? And this from someone who claims that the Medes were Turkic people!!! Shervink 13:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I added the term empires so that a reader can understand that this is the extent of Iranian peoples (which is accurate as the map is pretty good) including empires so that should take care of that hopefully. Tombseye 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BC/BCE

Prior to Dbachmann's recent edit [4], this article used BCE consistently. Please at least make an attempt to observe WP guidelines instead of making such a change. SouthernComfort 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it so that it corresponds to the rest of the article. Tombseye 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to create any controversy, but I wanted to replace the picture collage

I wanted to replace the picture collage with something that is symbolic of the Iranian peoples such as something from Zoroastrianism, the Fravashi. The picture collage, in my opinion is pointless as we have pictures that are more relevant in the various sections and it clashes with the intent of the article, which is not to depict an ethnic group. A symbol would help the article maintain an encyclopedic (rather than a people magazine) presentation. Just wanted to bring it up here first before doing it though. The Fravashi is good symbol of ancient Iranic culture (as many, if not most Iranic peoples have ancestors who were Zoroastrian, even among the fringes such as the Kurds and Pashtuns) and can't be misconstrued as solely 'Persian' since Zoroastrianism most likely developed in Afghanistan anyway. Just wanted to put that forward. Cheers. Tombseye 14:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree ... maybe we should include quite a few typical "Iranic" symbols ... Tajik 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, whatever you can think of. Right now, with the picture replaced, the article will take on a cleaner and more encyclopedic look and avoid the controversy of the picture that inevitably will come up. Tombseye 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up but we can use the picture down below can't we? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Iranian model wearing traditional attire, yes it's a good one and relevant to the subject matter under the culture section so I'm in favor of it and hopefully everyone else will concur. Tombseye 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the editing wars

Okay, the last version that did not name the Azaris or Azeris by name in the list, but discussed their unique situation was the last version we agreed to. It discusses that many consider the modern Azeris as the descendents of the Azaris and other Iranic tribes, but that the issue is debated still. The discussion is listed in the modern Iranian peoples list, but the compromise (give and take people) was not to actually list them as they do not fit the main criteria of speaking an Iranian language. The intro was not to be changed. Thanks. Tombseye 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

i thought the last edit was fine. it seemed to include everyone's concerns. it just looks really unorganized right now, i thought the other way where you name azari and add the note looks more professional. Rugsnotbombs 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the intro. We are starting from an absolutely wrong definition and thus are getting wrong results. Iranian peoples are not commonly or mainly defined by language, and the intro should be changed accordingly. Azeris are commonly included as Iranian peoples, and if we had not made the previous mistake at the intro we would have no problem incorporating them here. Anyhow, not complying with the contents of a WP article is not a criterion for exclusion. WP articles are based on external sources, not on themselves. If there is disagreement between the intro and the external established sources, it is the intro which should be changed, and that is the case here. Shervink 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Iranian peoples are defined only by language as all the other ethnolinguistic group. Term Iranic has been suggested as the substitute to alleviate controversy. This is what article is about. The sources that define Azeris as iranian people have in mind a ethnocultural definition that is NOT what the article is about abdulnr 00:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not absolutely wrong, check the MANY references. Even the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies goes by it and only lists Azaris (as the ancient group) and modern Azeris are discussed in a largely argumentative article and, unlike other articles they have, is not written by an academic. Look, do we have to have have this argument continuously without compromise? Encyclopedia Americana calls them a Turkic people based on their language. In fact, most references do the same. Now, there may indeed be a large component of the Azeris that is Iranian (not necessarily Persian, but other Iranians such as Central Asian Iranian) as well as Caucasian etc., but the simple reality is that we can't get past the current classification. The Azeris are discussed on numerous occassions and their unique situation will convey to readers that sometimes they are considered an Iranian people, which is accurate enough. We painstakingly went through all of the subterfuge to come to a compromise and this is really as far as we can go. There is nothing wrong with the intro as it complies with the other similar articles and conforms to most usages. Tombseye 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making a mistake. Only language as you put it, is the basis of defining a linguistic group, not an ethnic, ethno-linguistic, or ethno-cultural (as you suggested) group. Each term implies very clearly what is and what is not included, and a group based on language is obviously a linguistic group, since its only criterion of inclusion is language. If the basis of this article is only language, its title should say so, but it does not do so now. If the article had a title like Speakers of Iranian languages, for example, we wouldn't have a problem. What the title implies now is more general however, since the term Iranian has a much broader meaning than only language. Iranian peoples are commonly defined as a cultural group rather than a linguistic one, and the linguistic-alone interpretation seems to be a WP invention based on a comparison to Germanic peoples, which is firstly plain wrong and secondly original research. The conclusion remains that the intro needs a substantial change. Shervink 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

OK, could you please answer my question? The following is from encyclopedia Britannica:

Turkic peoples - any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. [5]

Do you think Azeris belong to this group or not? Grandmaster 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Proof that the claims from the Republic Of Azarbaijan's Revisionists are FALSE

Azaris are culturally, ethnically and historically Iranian; that said here is acadmeic fact.... IF YOU ALL LOOK AT MY PRESENTATIONS, YOU WILL SEE THAT AZARIS ARE A GENUINE IRANIAN TURCOPHONE PEOPLE; I Have academic proof and verifications. PLease go to talk:Azarbaijani people. User:Grandmaster is trying to even stop the use of the term AZARI. In Iran (the majority of the worlds Azaris) say AZARI not AZERI. He is trying to supress this fact. Azaris are ethnically Iran. I have genetic evidence and it is even cited throughout wikepeida in various articles on genetics. Turks are Asiatic not Caucasian. Please read the full discussion between me and user:Grandmaster. This user is also gaming the system and acting in bad faith.

Here are more sources that prove a lot of what you are saying is misinformation. http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/PARTIIAzar.html

The pan-Turanian theories discussed in Part I represent only a part of the picture. There is a whole set of beliefs being narrated about Iranian Azerbaijan in both the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. They are using the Turkish language as an instrument to differentiate Iranian Turcophones from the rest of Iran. Some of the pan-Turanian claims to Iranian Azerbaijan can be summarized into the following:

(1) Greater Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.

(2) Azerbaijanis have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years.

(4) The Safavid Empire was Turkish.

(5) Sattar Khan was a pan-Turanian separatist.

(6) Babak Khorramdin was a Turk who fought against Persia.

(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.

Before discussing these items, an important point must be revisited. Pan-Turanian claims to Azerbaijan are supported by a very powerful western lobby in the form of multinational and geopolitical petroleum interests. These hope to access and dominate the lucrative oil bonanza looming in the energy deposits of the Caucasus and Central Asia (see Part VI, items 1-3).

(d) Mr. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh. A leading proponent of Arran’s name change was Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh (1884-1955), the first leader of the newly created Republic of Azerbaijan (see photo below). Rasulzadeh was of Iranian origin from Baku, and was in fact heavily involved in the constitutional democratic movement of Iran during the early 1900s [xviii] (see Sattar Khan in item 5). Rasulzadeh was in fact the editor of the newspaper Iran-e-Now (The New Iran). Russian influence and coercion finally forced the Iranian government to expel Rasulzadeh from Iran in 1909 (?); he was exiled to Ottoman Turkey, where the Young Turk movement had gained power.

By the 1930s, Rasulzadeh’s writings revealed his full conversion to pan-Turanianism:

(a) At first he admitted that “Azerbaijan” (Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran?) was an ancient Iranian province that had been linguistically Turcified since at least the 13th century.

(b) He then rejected his previous writings and declared that Azerbaijan (both Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran) had always been “Turkish” and was never historically an integral part of Persia [xxiv]

Rasulzadeh had betrayed his Iranian heritage in two ways. First, he failed to fulfill his promises to Iranian Azerbaijanis to rectify the name change he had bought for Arran (at pan-Turanian behest). Second, Rasulzadeh adopted a false, divisive, and racist ideology. Rasulzadeh’s legacy continues to haunt the Caucasus and Iran to this day. That legacy has also provided an excellent tool for geopolitical manipulation.

After his arrest and expulsion from Russia, Rasulzadeh settled in Turkey, where he died in 1954 (see his funeral in Turkey below). Rasulzadeh established the “Azerbaijan National Centre” in Turkey, a movement which at the time was organized for the purpose of opposing Soviet rule in Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan).

c) Linguistic Turkification. The process of linguistic Turkification was reinforced with the arrival of the Mongols in the 1200s, and their Il-Khanid dynasty in Persia. Tamerlane’s descendants, the Qara/Kara-Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak/Aq-Qoyunlu (White Sheep) also ruled Iran. It must be noted that the Turkish migrants became absorbed into mainstream Persia, and they greatly patronized Persian, arts, culture and literature. Turks as whole have been tremendously influenced by Iranian culture – a prime example is the Moghul Dynasty of India, of Turkmen-Mongol descent. The Moghuls promoted Persian culture in India, a legacy which lasts to this day in modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

By the early 16th century (see Safavids item 4), Azerbaijani Turkish had largely replaced the indigenous Iranian Azeri in Azerbaijan and had also spread to Arran. The Turkish language however, did not alter the thousands year long Iranian character and legacy of Arran and Azerbaijan. As noted in item 4, the Safavid dynasty, whose members spoke Turkish in court and introduced much Turkish vocabulary to Iran, considered themselves as the heirs of Persia and bitterly fought the Ottoman Turks throughout their reign.

In Persia, identity has never been delineated by singular, simplistic and narrow concepts such as “race”, “mother language” or even “religion”. Consider the following examples:

SafavidsThe aforementioned Nader Shah was an ethnic Turcomen and adhered to the Sunni branch of Islam. Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (see illustration below) and his partisans spoke Luri, a west Iranian language distinct from Persian and Kurdish. The Zands (like Nader Shah before them) were essential in preserving Persia’s territorial integrity after the fall of the Safavids.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years. FALSE

This is at best, a grandiose exaggeration. The real influence of the Turks begins with the Seljuks and Ottomans, and even then, the Turks are only one more layer upon an ancient region that has seen a rich and varied legacy. If anything, it is the Persian and (to a lesser extent), the Greco-Roman legacies that remain in the Caucasus. The Turks, like the Russians and Ukrainians certainly have their legacy in the Caucasus. The issue in question is the exaggeration of the Turkish role, now proposed by pan-Turanian ideologues.

The Caucasus is one of the oldest cradles of human civilization – a prime example being the proto-Kartvelian Hurrian empire (2500-1270 BC) which at one time ruled much of northwest Iran and contemporary Kurdistan. The Hurrian legacy is still evident among the Kurds who use the ergative feature in their speech – a phenomenon seen in modern Georgian. While the Caucasus has certainly seen its share of Persian, Greek, Turkish and Russian influence, she has in turn vigorously and profoundly influenced all of these cultures in turn.

“The oldest outside influence in Trans-Caucasia is that of Persia (p.203)…many of its populations, including Armenians and Georgians, as well as Persians and Kurds, the Transcaucasus had much closer ties with the former Sassanian world to its south and east than with the world to the west (p.204)”.[Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p. 203-204].

'(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.'FALSE

(a) Ziya Gokalp. The notion of Azeris being Turkish because of language is based on the late Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) who equated language with racial and ethnic membership: you are racially Turkish if you speak Turkish. This is a standard argument of characters like Mr. Chehreganli and his western geopolitical supporters. Gokalp was in fact a Kurd born in Diyarbakr. He is one of a long line of non-Turks who helped build pan-Turanian ideology (Part I, item 1).

By no means is the discussion in this item attempting to simplistically outline the complex (and anthropolically interwoven) Iranian and Turkish national, ethnic, and linguistic identities. Such a Herculean task would require volumes of text. Instead, we are clearly confining the discussion to the linear and (in my opinion) divisive concept of “race” – in the purely anthological sense.

The main weakness of Gokalp’s simplistic premise is his oversimplification of the complex interrelationships between ethnicity, nationality, language and historical migrations. His logic is that speakers of a language “X” must also be racially members of “X”.

Likewise, being a Turcophone does not mean that one is automatically Turkish or Turkic by race. National identity is based on a number of domains, only one of which is defined by language. Nevertheless, this simplistic logic (language = race) is being used to attack the Iranian heritage of the people of Azerbaijan and Iran in general.

National identity is multi-faceted. A Belgian could be either a Francophone (Walloon) or Dutch dialect speaker (Flemish). A Frenchman can be Basque (Eskuri) or speak an Italian dialect (e.g. Provencal, Corsican, etc.). In northern France, many of the inhabitants lay claim to a proud Celtic tradition (Brittany).

Many modern Turks hail from Bosnian, Georgian, Iranian (Persian, Kurdish, Azeri) Greek, Arab, Venetian, Slavic and Armenian backgrounds. Arabs are just as diverse – in the eastern Arab world, many have Iranian ancestry (Persian and Kurdish) – the Levant has seen multitudes of Hittite, Mittani, etc. settlers in its history. In the Western Arab world one finds a plethora of Christians (Greek Orthodox, Coptic, etc.). One can also trace much of the ancestry of modern Arabs to the earlier Semitic peoples such as the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians (Aramaic-speakers), Syriacs, etc.

The Iranian ethnic mosaic is far too complex to even begin attempting to define it in the confines of this commentary. If we extend timelines back to pre-Aryan arrivals, we witness proto-Elamites in the Southwest and Southeast, and Hurrian arrivals from the Caucasus. We then have a long period of Iranian Aryan migrations onto the Iranian plateau and eastern Anatolia (many areas of western Iran and modern Kurdistan was already settled by Assyrian peoples). Arab settlers also arrived during Sassanian and post-Sassanian eras (a number of their descendants survive in Khorrassan and Tajikestan)– these are then eclipsed by subsequent Turkic and Mongol arrivals. The very overall sketch just outlined highlights how complex definitions such as “race” and “language” are.

Gokalp was not entirely wrong about Iran – there are a plethora of Turkic settlers who can trace their ancestry to the original Oghuzz (the aforementioned Nader Shah was a Turkmen). But even the identity of the Turkmen (meaning “very Turk”) is hotly disputed. There are claims of strong Iranic admixture within them. This is not surprising as Turkic and Iranic peoples have been intertwined in Central Asia for thousands of years. Even the Mongols who invaded Persia are said to have had some Iranian (North Iranic?) ancestry (see Turnbull in references).

The genetic ancestry of modern Turks is highly varied, mainly as a result of multiple migrations, wars and empires. While modern Turks (and a growing number of Hungarians) stress their genetic connection to Central Asia, scientific evidence fails to corroborate their beliefs. True, there are Turkmen Turks of Central Asian stock in eastern Turkey, however a large proportion of modern Turks have Balkan, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Azeri, Georgian, Varangian, and even some Celtic ancestry. The latter seems surprising; however the term “Ankara” may be derived from the Celtic “Ankyra”. The Galatian Celts appear in Anatolia’s interior after the Greeks defeated them in 230 BC. The original Turkic stock from Central Asia (some of whom live in northeast Iran today) have little or no connection to the European-type U5 cluster.

(c) The Analyses of Colin Renfrew.

Professor Colin Renfrew (see 1994 References) notes how Turkic languages spread by Elite Dominance:

“…incoming minorities…conquer other populations and…impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion…”[Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]

Genetic alteration can only occur as a result of one of more of the following:

[a] Sustained migrations across a long period of time

[b] Population dispersals by farming,

[c] Dispersals forced by climactic changes.

In general, the Turks did not arrive peacefully but as conquering elites who imposed their languages upon indigenous populations (Azeris, Arranis, etc.). Conquering elites provide very modest genetic changes to the indigenous populations that they conquer. However, they can alter the population’s language as result of their elite military and political dominance.

(d) The Cavalli-Sforza et al. Genetic Studies.

Renfrew’s studies have been corroborated by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (see photo below) and his colleagues, who have concluded the following after decades of genetic research:

“Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages…threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey…genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered…(p.125)…Turks…conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453..replacement of Greek with Turkish ..Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers…invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history…(p.152).” [Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]

Hungarians are considered to be Magyar speaking Europeans – not an Asiatic Turkic people. In like manner, why are the Azerbaijanis (of Iran in particular) being forcibly re-defined as “Turanian” simply because they speak Seljuk Oghuzz Turkish? How can a single index (Turkish language) be used to virtually erase Azerbaijan’s mighty civilizational identity in Persia? Azerbaijan has been of vital importance in the development of Persian civilization, just as Hungary has been a vital element in the development of European civilization.

It is here were the barbaric aspects of “race criteria” break down. In Afghanistan we have the Mongol descended “Hazara” (lit. “The Thousand” in Persian) who now speak Persian, or the many people of Khazar Turkish-Jewish descent in Dagestan (next to Chechniya) who speak Persian. Conversely, Azerbaijanis are an essentially Iranic people who mainly speak Turkish. A branch of the Turcophone Azeris are believed to have been settled in Iran’s Fars province by the Safavids– they are today known as the Qashqai’s (note photo of Qashaqi girl by Shahyar Mahabadi).

.....with all this criteria many of the Azari articles will have to refurbished. 72.57.230.179

GENETIC PROOF THAT AZERIS ARE IRANIANS=

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/fg1.h.jpg

Additionally...there is this genetic evidence under your noses. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html?erFrom=-1568565869309167708Guest It shows that the populations of Azarbaijan and Turkey are not Turkic. Notice the makeup is WEST EURASIAN and not EAST ASIAN. WEST ASIAN IS IRANO-CAUCASIAN. EAST ASIAN IS TURKIC/ORIENTAL. SOUTH ASIAN IS INDIC. AFRO-ASIATIC IS IS NOT MENTIONED. 72.57.230.179 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Here is scientific proof that says Azeris are not Turks: You can argue with people but not science"

Azeris are mixed of Armeno-Iranian heritage:

Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome

Nasidze I, Sarkisian T, Kerimov A, Stoneking M.

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. [email protected]

A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijanian therefore represent language replacements, possibly via elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, in which case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azerbaijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closely reflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore analyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 males from eight populations, representing all major linguistic groups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12596050

So, both the mtDNA (female line) and the Y-chromosomes (from father to son) seem to prove the fact, that modern Azeris are predominantly Turkic-speaking Armenians and Iranians. Their DNA has Europeana and Middle Eastern traces, but not Eastern Asian ones , which one would assume if they really were Turks. 72.57.230.179