Talk:Azerbaijanis

Persian vandalism on wikipedia

this page like many other pages is created by Persian vandals who have targeted the idendity and culture of Azeri turks and are afraid of southern Azerbaijan separatist movements, i know you will delet this comment but wikishits is no effective tool to assimilate a nation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.129.151 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Azeri people are definitely only to a small extend turks. The turks who stayed there, were too few to have an genetical impact on the population of the sessile caucasians and proto-iranians (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14714471), who resided there in this region. The azeris speak the turkish language, but only in response to turkish occupation of azerbaijan, which was brutal by any means. And this was only a small contingent of seljuk turkmen, who went to azerbaijan (read the authorative caucasuslogist Tadeusz Swietochowski rather than the "rants" by the grey wolves of the Nationalist movement party (mhp) and other would be turkish hegemonists). In general the turkish people who live in anatolya are generally a mixture of hettites, medes, greeks, and some georgian caucasians. There was not such a huge turkish migrant population that all these native peoples in anatolya can be called ethnic turks, and there were even fewer settling in the adverse caucasus than in the relatively easily controllable planes of the anatolian highlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.3.10 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming Anatolian Turks as the mixture of other nations is exactly an imaginative product of Persian vandals. According to the academic study of 15 years (1993-2008), the Ottoman census records of Anatolia (from 1453 to 1650) have been translated to the modern Turkish, and these records have displayed that there were more than 41.000 Turkic clans, all the records classify the people of Anatolia into ethnic groups and clans. According to all these written records of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, Turks were the most crowded people in Anatolia. So, based on these records, there are maps of 24 great Oghuz tribes displaying where the clans of Turkic people moved and settled in Anatolia. According to these Ottoman records, not counting the settled Turks, there were 984.377 households of nomadic Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century; and if you count each household as eight people, it shows that nearly 7.875.000 Turkic nomads lived in Anatolia. Turkish tribes and clans had their own villages and cities, and they moved to great cities and outnumbered Armenian and Greek people. Today, there are hundreds of villages and towns called Kayi, Salur, Igdir, Bayindir, Bayat, Yazir etc, which are the names of important Oghuz clans. In later periods, there have been always conflicts between Turks and other ethnic groups of Anatolia such as Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Therefore, Turks lived belligerently with others and didn’t intermingle with them. As a result of these conflicts, in 1914, Armenian people have been forced to migration; Also in 1923, Greek people has been forced to migration to Greece, and the following years, the Turks in Greece and Bulgaria have been forced to migration to Turkey. Today, the Turks in Anatolia are ethnically and racially Oghuz Turks, and they aren’t any mixture of other nations. Oghuz Turks are physically aren’t similar to Mongols and they still maintain their own characteristic features. In this respect, the Turks of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan, Balkans, Gagauz and Turkmenistan are very similar to each others, physically, linguistically and culturally, because they are all Oghuz Turks and they aren’t so slant-eyed like the others such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs, who have been under the influence of Mongols. Also the Salar people in China look like Chinese people as they are intermingled with them. In other words, slant-eyed features are derived from Mongoloid and Chinese races to the Turkic groups. In fact, all the historical records mention that most of the Oghuz Turks moved to Anatolia during the Mongol invasion of Aral and Khwarezmian steppes. As a result of the large migration of Turkic nomads, Turks outnumbered Anatolia, and didn’t intermingled with the Mongoloids. As the Oghuz Turks live nomadically, they escaped from the Mongol invaders and didn’t intermingle with them. Even just the clan of the founder of Ottoman House moved to Anatolia with a population of nearly 100.000 in order to escape the danger of Mongol invasion (the Ottoman historians cite it). According to the Ottoman census records of 15-16th centuries, approximately 7.875.000 Turkic nomads lived in Anatolia, except the settled Turks. If you count and include the settled Turks, there were more than 10.000.000 Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century. On the other hand, about the genetics, let me say, the science of genetics is still developing and nothing is certain about the genes. Nobody knows the genes of Oghuz Turks who lived 1000 years ago. Maybe Persians received their genes from Azerbaijani Turks; or the people of the Middle East borrowed most of their genes from the Turks who invaded all those areas. Genetics hasn’t been a reliable source yet. So, you can’t determine an ethnic group with their genes. You just deceive yourself or fool others. Last, Wikipedia articles are under Persian vandals or desirous boys, who fight for their Pan-Iranism aims. So, all these articles based on Persian ideas (not based on academical studies) are full of shit, and academically nonsense to care about. - 81.213.102.195 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Turks who stayed there were large enough to make a majority, hence the majority of hence Azeris speak a Turkic language and have a Turkic culture (with Iranic and Caucasian influences). Yes, the Turks did mix with Iranians and Caucasians, but only a majority could change the language and culture to Turkic. Wikipedian cliques like to push the insane theory, supported by modern quacks and pop scientists, that a small majority of medieval, mostly illiterate, peoples can become a cultural elite. This is a ridiculous and unlikely theory.

Also this article doesn't take into genetic drift into account. If the genetic studies have been interpreted correctly (which most are not because they are carried out by people who want to prove the theory they then put forward) and the Azeris show mostly Iranian and Caucasian genetics, this is more probably due to genetic drift; recent mixing with neighbours has caused most of the Turkic genetics to be hidden. You cannot see the whole genetic composition of any group in the modern era, and you cannot see the genetics of the originally Turkic ancestors of the Azeri people.

So Azeris might, indeed, descend from Iranians and Caucasians, but they would descent from Turks too. In fact, their Turkic descent would really be larger and more important... especially as they are a Turkic group.

The Turkification stuff on this page is completely unlikely, unsupported nonsense which projects modern teaching methods onto a medieval, nomadic Turkic group. Nonsense. The Mummy (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Language displacement by smaller but militarily and politically dominant minority populations ruling over much larger subordinated ones is not unheard of in history, hence the near extinction of Celtic languages in Europe during the Roman era and the adoption of Arabic in Mesopotamia, the Levant and across North Africa during the Arab-Islamic Caliphate. Languages such as Aramaic, Egyptian/Coptic, Berber etc all gave way to Arabic, despite the numerically superior numbers of native Mesopotamians, Egyptians etc as opposed to the smaller number of incoming Arab invaders and settlers from the Arabian peninsula. اردیبهشت (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Azeri belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family. In the eleventh century the “Tūrān defeated Ērān” and a broad wave of Oghuz Turks flooded first Khorasan, then all the rest of Iran, and finally Anatolia, which they made a base for vast conquests. The Oghuz have always been the most important and numerous group of the Turks; in Iran they have assimilated many Turks of other origins and even Iranians. source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-viii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.198.10 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

اردیبهشت: You are completely incorrect in terms of your examples. The vast majority of the people in the Levant and Iraq (Mesopotamia) are ethnically Arab. Just like the completely false and unsourced claims that the Azeris are and Iranian people, claims of Iraqis and Levantines being not Arab are for the purpose of furthering Iranian influence and hegemony. Remember that etnivity is not purely based on descent, but also acquired culture and identity. Most Iraqis, Egyptians, Levantines etc... classify themselves as Arabs, thus that is their ethnicity. Also, even in terms of descent, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula are descended themselves mostly from Levantines during the mid-iron age, and everyone in the world is descended from Ethiopians from the neolithic age. The vast majority of Azeris today consider themselves to be Turkic, thus the Azeri people are Turkic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.84.74 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Misqouting sources to inflate population numbers

The 49 million is the population of Iran in 1985 and not the population of Azerbaijani people. The user is misquoting the source.[1] The source says: [2]"Azerbaijan, situated in the north-west of present day Iran, is a region with a population of 7,770,000 (out of the nation's total population of 49,765,000)". Kurdo777 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I undid my edit. Sincerly Greczia. --Greczia (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Greczia is falsifying a source. Roger Howard makes no claim about the population of Azeris in Iran, he just quotes some no-name ethnic activist as claiming that "[he] reckons {the population] to be closer to 35 million than the official estimate of 14 million." So the source does report this claim as fact, and Greczia is once again misusing/misquoting sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Full citation:

• "Chehregani [...] argued that the Iranian regime [...] deliberately underplayed the real number of Azeris in the country, which he reckons to be closer to 35 million than the official estimate of 14 million."

SOURCE: Roger Howard (2004). Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response. Zed Books. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-1842-7747-55.

And btw facts are not requested here. --Greczia (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Chehregani, an activist with an agenda, is not an independent reliable source. Familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Every kind of opinions are requested, as well as Chehregani. --Greczia (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, read the relevant policies. Fringe claims and opinions by random activists with various agendas, are not "requested". Kurdo777 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please cite it, I still didn't found the exact place regarding this point. --Greczia (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kurdo. Neither the book cited above nor the Joshua Project are reliable sources as per WP:RS. --Lysozym (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is obviously a reliable source. It is a fact that Azeri nationalists estimate the number at up to 35 million, and that official estimates are more inline with 14 million. That is exactly what the source says. This is just an attempt to censor the article by excluding perfectly good sources. It is not our job to select between bias nationalist sources and official ones when they contradict each other. We should be presenting both viewpoints. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. We have to wait for further neutral opinions like your's to show Kurdo777 that he is wrong. --Greczia (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To DrKiernan: We are not suppose to give the same weight to what you admit to be bias nationalist sources, without as much as mentioning that these are nationalist figures, as we do to academic/official source per Wikipedia policies of WP:Fringe and WP:Weight. Also, there is a difference between citing a good source that reports something as an objective fact or just quotes another person's subjective opinion without giving any credence to it. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia built on neutral facts, not biased opinions. But since you believe otherwise, I'll soon be requesting a Request for Comment for wider community input to settle this issue once and for all. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some unreliable sources here and some of them do not meet WP:RS or not quoted fully, but I only removed the first one:

• Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2008). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=stl97FdyRswC&pg=PA79. "... 32 million people in Iran..."[3]

It Says: "Azeris in the Akkad period and Guti Azerbaijani tribes?!" in first millenium B.C. (so removed per WP:fringe).

• Missed a major quote. Shaffer, Brenda (2003). Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press. pp. 221–225. ISBN 0-262-19477-5. "There is considerable lack of consensus regarding the number of Azerbaijanis in Iran ... Azerbaijani student groups in Iran claim that there are 27 million Azerbaijanis residing in Iran." The 27 million again is Azeri student group.. whereas Shaffer says: pg 223: "Most conventional estimates of the Azerbaijani population range between one-fifth to one-third of the general population of Iran, the majority claiming one-fourth"...So clearly figures above 1/3 are nationalist figures.

• Alieva, Leila (2007). "Promoting Cooperation and Integration in the Wider Black Sea Area". In Volten, Peter M. E.; Tashev, Blagovest. Establishing security and stability in the wider Black Sea area: international politics and the new and emerging democracies. IOS Press. p. 157. ISBN 1-58603-765-X. http://books.google.com/books?id=mVQdN7Ryu4YC&pg=PA157. "... large number of Azerbaijanis (30 million in northern Iran and 8 million in present Azerbaijan), ..."..Again nonsense source without any proof. Northern Iran BTW does not contain 30 million people. The Azerbaijan region of Iran contains about 8 million people. Even though the source is WP:fringe, it is kept..
• Olson, Robert W. (2004). Turkey-Iran relations, 1979–2004: revolution, ideology, war, coups and geopolitics. Mazda. p. 76. ISBN 1-56859-114-4. "... in Ankara, Johragani denounced 'Persian' chauvinism and Iran's violation of human rights against the '30 million Azeris of Iran'."..again nationalist source..needs a separate section.

Given this..I am bringing the old format which differentiates between the two types of sources.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Further justification:

• Ali Gheissari, "Contemporary Iran:Economy, Society, Politics: Economy, Society, Politics", Oxford University Press, Apr 2, 2009. pg 300:"Azeri ethnonationalist activist, however, claim that number to be 24 million, hence as high as 35 percent of the Iranian population"

Per Shaffer above (who is anything but pro-Iran and highly biased against Iran), 1/4 is the conventional figure(pg 223: "Most conventional estimates of the Azerbaijani population range between one-fifth to one-third of the general population of Iran, the majority claiming one-fourth"...So clearly figures above 1/3 are nationalist figures.). However, this conventional figure contradicts serious academic sources and specialists WP:RS sources which have looked at the issue in more detail or are serious academic professors:

• Michael Knüppel, "TURKIC LANGUAGES OF PERSIA: AN OVERVIEW", Encyclopaedia Iranica [4] "Altogether, one-sixth of today’s Iranian population is turcophone or bilingual (Persian and Turkic; see Doerfer, 1969, p. 13). "
• "Mehrdad Izady - Columbia University - Gulf 2000 Project - Language Map of Iran - 2012 [5] "
• CIA factbook/Library of Congress. CIA factbook used to have 24% of Iran is "Turkic speaking" in 2011..but their 2012 has 16% Azeri. This actually matches up with any accurate estimate that is done on provincial statistics. That is for good reason, because a basic province by province calculation yields 16%

(four provinces of East Azerbaijan, Zanjan, Ardabil and half of West Azerbaijan (about half Kurdish btw) are about 10% of Iran's population and the other 6% are scattered as minorities in adjoining provinces). The reason most conventional estimates had 1/4 was due to the old figures of CIA factbook. But anyone that just checks simple math (Iranian province populations) and compares to a rough ethnic map [[6]] will see the 1/6 figure is more accurate.[7].

• Note this source [[[8]] has official estimates.
• So per sources such as these:
• Shaffer, Brenda (2003). Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press. pp. 221–225. ISBN 0-262-19477-5. "There is considerable lack of consensus regarding the number of Azerbaijanis in Iran ... Azerbaijani student groups in Iran claim that there are 27 million Azerbaijanis residing in Iran." The 27 million again is Azeri student group.. whereas Shaffer says: pg 223: "Most conventional estimates of the Azerbaijani population range between one-fifth to one-third of the general population of Iran, the majority claiming one-fourth"...So clearly figures above 1/3 are nationalist figures. (Note this source is highly bias against Iran)

• Ali Gheissari, "Contemporary Iran:Economy, Society, Politics: Economy, Society, Politics", Oxford University Press, Apr 2, 2009. pg 300:"Azeri ethnonationalist activist, however, claim that number to be 24 million, hence as high as 35 percent of the Iranian population"

It is worth reporting both figures with the caution that one is conventional estimate (academic sources, Swiewtchowski, CIA factbook) and the others are either ethno-nationalist sources or sources lacking serious expertise (general sources,teritary, etc).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My take:

1. The precise number of Iranian Azerbaijanis is unknown, mainly for political reasons (on both sides).

2. I would stick with recent sources (i.e. preferably 21st century ones). The 1969 source is just too out of date.

3. Unreliable sources, such as the Joshua Project, should be dismissed.

4. It would be best to stick with "conventional estimates", per Shaffer, maybe giving this as a percentage of the population (20 - or less - to 33%) rather than a figure, unless the source itself provides such a figure.

5. The nationalist estimates should be noted in a footnote rather than in the box itself. --Folantin (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

NB: If this argument is about the infobox, then it may be better just to write "Unknown - see article for a discussion of estimates". There was a similar problem with the Berber page, with wildly differing estimates constantly added and removed. In the end, the solution was not to put any figures in the infobox. --Folantin (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks the estimates do widely vary. User Greczia was found to be a sock [9] (and has been pushing a lot of fringe). The CIA factbook 2012 has 16% while Shaffer says 1/4 is conventional and then puts 1/3 as the highest. The Iranica source itself is written in 2010..what is valuable about it is that Doerfer did field work in Iran on Turkic languages..It might be out-dated by it basically agrees with the CIA factbook 2012.
• There are also relatively accurate maps about population in Iran: [10] (with official Iranian estimates also mentioned in the text below the box). Here are some other map: [11][12][13]
• These maps can be correlated with provincial estimates [14]. Like one can correlate this map with [15] (note this map has both an estimate and also mentions official Iranian figures of 2001 such as 68% speak Persian as their native language..) and get a rough estimate (which I did, half of West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan makes up about 7-8 million people. Then one can add bordering regions and Tehran and gets close to 4 million which is the CIA factbook number). (Another Iranian embassy figure: [16](it puts 65% Persian, 20% Azeri, 7% Kurd..).
• Overall though, Iranian government is disorganized, with officials giving variety of figures, and this has led to confusion. That is why the CIA factbook or Columbia Gulf 2000 project are actually more accurate.
• Overall none of these numbers take into account inermarriage, and also regions where bilingualism occurs and no one has really an "ethnic identity" but simply speak several languages. For example Khamenei is half Azeri/half Persian or Musavi's wife is Persian..etc.
• But I believe numbers are starting to converge to accurate numbers (hence the substantial change in CIA factbook 2012 relative to say 1990-2011 and the CIA is definitely interested in Iran).
• There are some non-specialist sources that are found randomly in google books without checking the academic credentials of the authors.
• I agree with all your points specially point 4..However, I did check the berber article and in the text, it talks about 100 million Berbers!..I am not an expert on that region, but 100 million Berbers seems unrealistic. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"but 100 million Berbers seems unrealistic". Yeah, that's completely ridiculous, and I've just removed it. Even half that figure would be way too high. I no longer have that page on my watchlist so I don't know when it must have crept in. I just check the page occasionally to see if anyone's messed around with the numbers in the infobox. I suppose this might be down to some nationalists claiming the whole of the population of the Maghreb are Berbers or Arabised Berbers. The problems defining who is a Berber are very similar to the ones you mention in defining who is an Iranian Azerbaijani (although the Berber issue is even more complex, being spread across several countries). It's simply better to say no one knows the precise figure and have a discussion of the estimates in the article, explaining why such a figure is so hard to come by. Infoboxes don't really work here. --Folantin (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Reveal of Khodabandeh14's argumentation

This is actually a reliable source:

• Facts On File, Incorporated: Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East,Infobase Publishing, 2009, p.79

And as DrKiernan said this book below is obviously a reliable source as well:

• Roger Howard (2004). Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response. Zed Books. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-1842-7747-55.

--Alpargu (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Both sources are unreliable and Dr. Kiernan made no such claim. Even if he did both sources are unreliable. The first source states: ""Azeris in the Akkad period and Guti Azerbaijani tribes?!" in first millenium B.C. (so removed per WP:fringe). The second source is fine under nationalist as it quotes Chohregani but 35 million is not conventional estimate. Also wikipedia does not allow WP:fringe, so stop it. --74.96.169.227 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkic people or Turkic-speaking people

Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people, as Turkish people, Turkmens, Kyrgyz Turks, Kazakh Turks, Uzbek Turks, Tatars, they are Turkic-speaking people because they are a Turkic people. But Iranian POV that Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speaking people but ethnically iranians (Turkic-speaking iranians) is not scientific and is a chauvinistic propaganda in Iran. Chauvinism is not neutral point of view. Stop nationalistic POV-pushing--Melikov Memmed (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkic is a linguistic identification, same as Slavic or Germanic. Turkic people are those who speak a Turkic language, therefore Azerbaijanis are Turkic people. I don't think changing Turkic for Turkic-speaking makes any sense. Any encyclopedia describes Azeris as Turkic people. The argument that Azeris were originally Iranian and Caucasian people who were Turkiphied still does not change the fact that Azeris are Turkic people, because Turkic is a linguistic category. Basically, this is an argument over nothing. Grandmaster 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Azerbaijani people is not azeri people.--Qara khan 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people are Turkic people. This fact. Some users' edits (like Mervzi, Espiral, Khodabandeh14) in the article is persian propaganda. Yes they have the sources for their propaganda, but this is just a fake and sources has nothing to do with reality.--Qara khan 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster, maybe for you changing Turkic for Turkic-speaking does not make any sense. But for Iranian Azerbaijanis it makes. According to Persian chauvinism Azerbaijanis are ethnically iranians, they are not a Turkic people, they are only Turkic-speaking iranians--Melikov Memmed (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about this point of view, it has been discussed here a lot in the past. But we must realize that Turkic, Slavic, Germanic, Semitic, etc are just linguistic categories, genetics have nothing to do with it. Grandmaster 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Turkic is linguistic category. When the words of “Azerbaijan” were replaced with “Azarbaijan” I thought that such strange behavior is only a POV-pushing, but then It became clear that many official sites of Iran also write “Azarbaijan”. I understand that changing “Azerbaijan” for “Azarbaijan” does not make any sense, but still I think that it is necessary to help such primitive chauvinists to respect other peoples--Melikov Memmed (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As Americans or many of the English-speaking people of Africa are not Germanic, Azeris are not Turkic too. Please stop Turkish Fascism Propaganda!--Mervzi (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@Melikov , please use proper language in your editing . Using such sentences as it is necessary to help such primitive chauvinists to respect other peoples may cause you punishments in Wikipedia . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m sorry, to replace words of “Azerbaijan” with “Azarbaijan” in English language, is not “primitive chauvinism”, it is “super primitive chauvinism”--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do prefer Azerbaijan because this form is more familiar for English language reader . But anyway , your language is not constructive , I mean accusing other editors by using such words may end up in blockage by admins . More than that , the word primitive , is not a word of ordinary use . Please use a type of language that is more Civil (See also WP:ETIQ) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing is notably unhelpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stop Persian vandalism on Wikipedia @Alborz Fallah; Do not worry, now almost everybody knows who is doing vandalism and who has to be punishment in Wikipedia. Aztap (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

Azerbaijani people → Azeri people – remove confusion with the people of the country, which also use the same term "Azerbaijani people" to describe it. "Ethnic Azerbaijani people" should therefore be called "Azeri people". WP:PRECISE also prefers the shorter name. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Not a valid reason to move. By that logic, Ukrainian people or French people should also be moved to avoid confusion. Grandmaster 05:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment American people is about the citizens of the United States, so obviously, "Azerbaijani people" should be about the people of Azerbaijan. And these people are called the Azeri people, so why not move it to the name they are known by which is also not ambiguous? Clearly Azeri means these people, while "Azerbaijani" does not always mean it, so any use of Azerbaijani will be tainted by multiple associations. I also think it should primarily mean the people of Azerbaijan. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment Accroding to google books, the common name of this ethnic group in English language is Azeris
  • "Azerbaijani people" -Llc
  • "Azeri people" -Llc
  • "Azeris" -Llc

Takabeg (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)