Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 4

message: —Khoikhoi 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I'd like to point out some major problems with . The second picture from the left is an azeri woman who are Turkic, not Iranic. Plus Catherine Bell's ancestry is half Scottish. I dont mean to play spoilsport, but these are glaring errors on an image that is supposed to represent Iranian peoples. -Kilhan 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of Azeris in this article is still being discussed, so unless we include them, we shouldn't have a picture of an Azeri woman. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can't include the Azeris. It seems that we are veering away from the purposes of this article. In fact, after having given a rendition of what the Iranian peoples are, how is it possible to actually trace the Azeris to an Iranic tribe, that is all of them in a manner similar to that of the Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns who all speak Iranian languages? It's all heresay and without the language link any inclusion of other groups is not tenable. Furthermore, culture and history would include a great many people (including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, etc.) and render this article pointless, which it is not. It serves a purpose and explains the movements of the various Iranian peoples as a whole and their modern counterparts. By including other groups to appease one group, in this case the Persians, we open a pandora's box and the inclusion of the Azeris will simply turn this article into a Persian/Iran (the country) page rather than an academic view of the Iranian peoples. Giving them some peripheral mention is one thing, but counting them as an Iranian people is just not logical. Tombseye 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last picture seems fine. Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  collage of different iranian peoples 

message: It is very upsetting for me as an Iranian that one of the greatest ethnic groups of Iran can not be included but I am afraid, I have to agree with khoikhoi and tombseye. Yes being Iranian/Iranic is much more than just linguistic but language is the most important link. If we add them then it would be fair for Turkish editors to consider adding Kurdish people of turkey to the Turkic people article. After all, I am sure they have adapted some Turkish culture after being part of a Turkish country for so long and the only clear difference that they have with the Turks is their non-Turkic language. same goes for the Iraqi kurds. We can not have double standards. Azeri people are very much part of Iran and Iranian in culture but they do not speak and Iranian language and this is very important. Remember that this article is not about Iran or who did what, who was most loyal, or who has been there the longest; rather it is about an ethnic and linguistic group of people. Almost half of the members of this group don’t even live in Iran. Talking about Azeri people and other Turkish speaking Iranians in a separate section is a great idea but we can not add them to the list.
Sorry for the long message!Gol 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere opinion is that it is better to delete the article, and spread its contents over other articles such as Iranian languages etc., rather than leave it like this and not include the Azeris which are one of the most important ethnic groups of Greater Iran. I am not even an Azeri myself, but I do not know of a single Azeri person - and I know many - who wouldn't identify him/herself first and foremost as Iranian. What's the problem with stating that they are linguistically Turkic, but in most other ways Iranian? Besides, virtually all Azeris of Iran also speak Persian, as do all Iranians for that matter. The problem is the wrong definition on this page. Shervink 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're the one who recently changed the definition in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the Iranian peoples. See User:Grandmaster's comment here. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're merging Iranian citizens with an academic category is the problem. Note that the Hazara, who have a great deal of Mongol ancestry are considered an Iranian people due to their language and culture and yet could be argued as a Turkic-Mongol group who just happen to speak an Iranian language. This article can't be merged into the Iranian languages article BECAUSE that article is specifically about the languages and the various evidentiary traits that classify them as Iranian languages. That article actually needs more work in order to compare grammatical forms, idioms, vocabulary etc., but that's where that article's emphasis is. This article is about the tribes and languages and cultures and how they are linked in various ways. Where else is this to be rendered? Where else can you get a picture of how this group of people came to be and how these languages and peoples were formed? It serves a purpose and there is plenty of room in the Turko-Iranian and Iranian Turkish articles to discuss how Iranian the Azeris are, at least according to some people. This article is not about that aspect. Why the need to keep the Kurds in (when some Kurdish editors felt that it was too orthodox to include them as an Iranian people) and then also incorporate the Azeris who don't even speak an Iranian language? Now at this rate, nationalism has come up with the Pashtun page where some people insist that the Pashtuns are not an Iranic people and that Pashto is not traced to Middle Iranian, but is actually a separate branch of the old Indo-Iranian group. Original research pure and simple that is not substantiated. This case is the same. I'm not saying the Azeris have a great many commonalities with Persians, Kurds, etc., but they are a Turkic people according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Bartley, and all the other sources that I've been given as evidence with the only mention being that they are Persian in culture. At this point, I can only conclude that this has more to do with nationalism than a rational choice to render an encyclopedic article about the Iranian peoples. Note in the article the various discussions of the various groups. The Croatians have a theory that they are not Slavs, but descendents of the Sarmatians so shall we add them? There is a place to discuss other views and then there is a place to explain the most commonly accepted academic perspectives on various peoples. Without that, we have chaos and I won't be able to argue that the Kurds cannot be included as a Turkic people since we will have lost any semblance of consistency. Tombseye 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tombseye, I think your previous post actually clarifies my point of view to a large extent. I have been saying all along that Iranian languages and Iranian peoples need two articles, not one, because Iranian peoples have a broader meaning than just language. You say the same in the previous post. Considering that as given, there is no reason to exclude Azeris from this article based on linguistic issues, since, as you pointed out, that is not the main concern here. Note also that, as you said yourself, Azeris are Persian in culture, at least in most respects. It goes without saying that the proper definition of this article would give equal weight to language and culture. There is nothing wrong with associating Azeris with Turkic and Iranian/Iranic people simultaneously. In fact, that would be more accurate, simply because they are affiliated with both. Shervink 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that problem can be addressed at the Turko-Iranian page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding Turko-Iranian culture might be in order as well on both the Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples page to help clarify that these groups are often quite fluid. My main point here is that on this page we are talking about the Iranian peoples of the past who segue into the present and that makes the direct inclusion of the Azeris higly problematic. Tombseye 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what is problematic about the inclusion of Azeris. Azeris are very commonly considered Iranian, and they rarely state otherwise themselves. It is the exclusion of Azeris which needs clarification and is problematic, not their inclusion. Shervink 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're taking a Persian perspective rather than an academic one, but here's a compromise then. We can create a sub-section under ethnic groups regarding related and overlapping groups and include a discussion of the Azeris and not list them as an Iranian people as that is just viable within the parameters of this article. In fact it's already kind of started as I've been added information on the subject and the interaction between Persians and Azeris etc. Tombseye 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t think it is correct to include Azeris with Iranian people. I have nothing but respect for Iranian and Persian people, they are our brothers and sisters, but the ethnicity is based on the language, and Azeris are Turkic speakers. They belong to Turkic people, despite their close historical and cultural ties with Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  "ethnicity is based on the language"? Since when? Also I don't think Azeris have spoken Turkic languages from the begining. Although I doubt there is any historical evidence to support/oppose this -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Azeris belong to the same group as Yakuts and Gagauz, despite Azeris being culturally closer to Persians and not having much in common with many Turkic people. That is because all those people speak Turkic languages. So Azeris don’t belong to Iranian people, insisting on the opposite would not be an academic approach. On the other hand, there are close cultural ties between Azeris and Persian people, but this should be addressed a different way, not by inclusion of Azeris with Iranian people. Maybe a special section should be created for that in the article. Grandmaster 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm in a way. They may be called Turk because of their language, but historically speaking Azeris have been as Iranian as much as any other tribe in Iran -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is exactly the reason why they should be included within both groups, with a notice on each page to point out the relation to the other group. Shervink 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri people 

message: Why is this section even here? Does it say anything in particular about the Iranian peoples, or rather does it simply concerntrate on the Kurds? In case anyone is curious, there is already another biased article regarding the "genetic origins" of the Kurds. I find it curious that these speculative racialist theories are included here as fact, when they are simply the POV of a group of scientists. At any rate, I ask again - does this information belong here considering that it cannot be used to generalize millions upon millions of people spread across the region? I'd really like to know. SouthernComfort 07:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not 'racialist' at all. National Geographic now regularly employs genetic and genealogical tests to prove or disprove population movements, such as with the Phoenicians and the Mongols. It also gives us insights into cultural assimilation and is actually becoming quite common in academia. How is it biased if we find genetic markers that show Kurdish links to people in the Caucasus? They are still an Iranic people and also have common genes with Iranic people in addition so what's the problem? These tests, once a wider sample has taken place, will give us more insights. The Kurds will remain an Iranic people since they do possess the main criteria, an Iranian language as do the Ossetians and Hazara etc. the problem is that people think of these tests as a litmus test for race when they should be looking at the common genetic markers that show links between various peoples and to what degree. The question of cultural assimilation shows that the Azeris, who are bitter adversaries of the Armenians, are actually closely related to them. I'm more in favor of adding information than deleting it at any rate. If you have information or think the findings are controversial and can word it well, then add what you can. Tombseye 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this article is about the Iranian peoples in general and using a genetic study that focuses only on one group to make generalizations about the whole is POV. If you have genetic studies that compare similarities/differences between Iranian/Iranic populations, that's one thing. But as it is the section is rather speculative and this is unnecessary. As such, I suggest including only the first study since it does mention specific populations (according to the article: "Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks") - I haven't read the whole article, but it seems, however, that they only sampled populations from Iran. More details from that article could be incorporated here, i.e. how many were sampled, what regions were they from, etc. The second source appears to focus only on Kurds from Iraq (correct me I'm wrong). Again, there is already another article with this same exact information. My suggestion is to only include sources which collectively compare Iranian populations, rather than focus on a single group. SouthernComfort 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid argument. Actually, I didn't particularly want the Kurdish study myself, but then there are a lot of things that I don't want done that people insist upon for their own reasons. It's not easy since everyone is a critic and everyone wants something to be placed in a way that may make no sense. Now on the Pashtun page we have people who insist that the Pashtuns are not Iranic at all. It's a never-ending thing on wikipedia. Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with taking out the studies that don't talk about all the Iranian peoples and whatever you have in mind sounds okay to me. Tombseye 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: The term Īrān in Modern Persian comes from the Middle Persian term Ērān which in turn comes from the Old Persian term ariya-. In the 19th century the term ariya- was "discovered" by archeologists and linguists studying various Iranian texts - and it was later incorporated into Modern Persian with a very limited usage (usually having to do with the history of Iran, race, and nationalism). So, to make a long story short, you cannot find any mention of the exact word "Arya" or "Aryan" in any Persian text between 300AD-1800AD. You can find it after and before, but not in between. 
The term Ērān in MP, however, is a cognate of the OP ariya-. It's sad to see so many people going around saying "Iran means 'Land of Aryans'". How can a four-letter word mean "Land of Aryans"??? Iran, Eran, and ariya are altimately the same word: *arya- (the asterik means it's reconstructed). This "land of Aryans" business is probably coming from the other term Ērānšahr (MP pron.: airaan-shahr) which is usually translated "land of Iran" or "land of Iranians". But Iran by itself doesn't really mean anything. If you stretch it far enough you can say it means "noble", but I don't know where this "land of Aryans" nonsense is coming from. Probably some ultra-nationalist thing. Heh. AucamanTalk 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you said its nonsense, did you read the sources? How can you say Iran by itself doesn't mean anything when you have, your self, in the same paragraph, described where it comes from?!!! I can stretch it even further for you, Airyanem Vaejah, Aryana, Eranvej, Iran Shahr, Aryanam and Iran. It's always been pretty much the same title, but language has changed through out the time. It's sad to see a self pro-claimed "Iranian" denying his Aryan heritage  -  K a s h  Talk | email 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant  -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Land of Aryans"

message: About the picture, I like the current one but it might be a good idea to include some people who are NOT Iranians citizens. This way it would clearly, at first look, show the readers that this category has nothing to do with Iranian citizens. Hamid Karzai is a very good choice but all the other people are from inside the borders of Iran and more than likely Iranian citizens or children of Iranian citizens. Maybe a Kurdish citizen of Turkey or a Tajik person would be a good idea. Gol 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. The new picture now has a Persian Jewish guy from Israel that is still Iran-specific. I'd suggest, at the most 2 people from Iran, 1 Afghan, 1 Kurd, and someone from one of the other groups such as a Tajik, Baluch, Ossetian etc. Tombseye 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: The pic contains one Persian, one Kurd, an Afghan/Pashtun, a diaspora Canadian-Iranian, and a Persian Jew who are as Iranian as anybody else.  Also remember it is very hard to get copyrights to pics from creators, as I have done, which means the pic would not be deleted by Wiki.  I think the pics breath life into the article, as Wiki as an encyclopedia has the advantage of having these pics placed in articles, so they do matter.
Keep-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on collage 

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

message: Delete-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section

message: *Include - I think we should only have an image of 1 Persian, to show the diversity in Iranian peoples is not limited to just Persians. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay calm man. I understand your frustration, I know how it feels. I can make the image if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on adding a famous Baloch, Ossetian, Talysh, or Hazara to the page

message: *Keep-Zmmz 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on the Hazara Girl picture 

message: *Delete- As such it is about Iranian peoples, and pictures of real people are more appropriate.Zmmz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on keeping cartoon picture such as the `Kurdish Sultan`, or replace them with real pictures

message: The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks who are often considered a closely related cultural group to Iranian peoples throughout history and in modern times.
What does this sentence mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togrol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2006.
:Well, that was written to placate some folks who wanted the Azeris to be mentioned in some capacity and their status clarified as a closely related cultural group. It would properly refer to all non-Iranic citizens of Iran of course in addition to Turks. Tombseye 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main or maybe the only reason to use the term IraniC is to avoid confusion with non-Iranian citizens. It has nothing to do with Turks or other peoples. The current way is too biased and should be corrected. Togrol 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the term Iranic was meant to be applied to people who speak Iranic languages first and foremost and then have some other common linkages to varying degrees. Thus, Afghans who are Pashtun and Tajik are Iranic, whereas Uzbeks aren't. Also though, it is meant to avoid confusion with the term Iranians which is popularly used to describe all Iranians who include non-Iranic peoples such as Arabs and Turks. Hope that helps. Tombseye 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranians and Turks?

message: This article is not about linguistics alone, nor is linguistics its main point. Linguistic and cultural factors should be considered when classifying people, both to the same extent. Even if you want to give the preference to one of them, it should definitely be culture rather than language. We speak of the Iranian cultural continent, not the linguistic continent. Azeris are just as Iranian as other Iranians, and I do not mean citizenship of modern Iran when I use that word. With the same reasoning, Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are Iranian people. No compromise on these points is acceptable here, as it would severely reduce the validity of the article. Also, the term Iranic is being taken too seriously. The term is not common in academia, although used sometimes. Making it the main terminology of choice, by using it throughout Wikipedia, is thus original research. Wikipedia cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term Iranian. Shervink 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know then that there should be no problem with excluding the Kurds then. I mean since this article is turning into a Persian nationalist front article rather than an article about the Iranic peoples. Which ancient Iranic tribe are the Azeris to be linked to? What of their ties to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians and others? The Iranian peoples start with their language commonalities and then with other factors IN ADDITION. The Iranian languages article is about the languages and not the peoples who speak them. It's a very easy and clear distinction. And besides which we voted and most people favor keeping the article as is. You can't make unilateral decisions and go against the majority. Tombseye 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Azeris are Iranians

message: I removed them again. I realize it shows faces of members of various Iranian peoples. It still doesn't show "Iranian peoples", it shows "Iranian people" at best. It's a gimmick. In the interest of encyclopedicity, by all means present images of individuals, preferably in traditional garb or otherwise typical of specific ethnic groups, but label them individually (this is a Pashtun, this is a Persian, this is a Yaghnobi, etc.). Just showing a magazin cover, a model, and the Afghan president and labelling them "Iranian people" is ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the collage is silly, especially the magazine cover, but I can live with the improved caption. dab (ᛏ) 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't show Iranian peoples, it shows Iranian people". It's basically just the list turned into a picture, and I personally think it enhances the article. You're right, the magazine does look pretty weird, we can fix that if need be. It does seem that the Turkic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples pages don't have collages. —Khoikhoi 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imho, a map along the lines of :Image:Iran peoples.jpg (this particular map is too small, not showing Tajikistan etc.) showing the actual distribution of peoples would be rather more encyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely the magazine pic needs to be changed and I'm not a big fan of the picture myself as it's too similar to the peoples' pages, but hey I'm working with a give and take. I agree that it should show people of a more wide variety AND in native dress or something to denote the variability and two Persians (regardless of their religions is excessive). Also, I agree regarding a map. Tombseye 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the mugshots

message: I'm sorry to say this, but in the present way this article should be merged with Iranian languages. There seems to be an agreement among most editors (myself not included) that the premier focus here is the Iranian languages. If that is the case, this article is redundant and unnecessary. I propose to merge it with the article on Iranian languages. What do you think?Shervink 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Even if this group is purely linguistic still we have a Germanic languages and Germanic people. Slavic languages and Slavic people. why should it be different for iranian? Gol 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misreading the article as the Iranian language use is one factor, but the main starting factor. It's also impossible to merge this article as there is too much to burden Iranian languages with. Basically, the impasse is not over its content, but the desire to include a group that is not universally regarded as an Iranian people, the Azeris. That's what this is about. And where do we discuss the tribes of Iranian origin, what happened to them and the various peoples who speak Iranian languages? I agree with Gol's take regarding the Slavs and Germanic groups as well. Tombseye 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: The best title for the contents of this article is: Speakers of Iranian Languages. The question of merging this article with Iranian languages comes later. If an article with the name "Iranian peoples" should exist, that article should either be directed to Iran demographics or should include all Iranian peoples, includin Azeris. There is no strong evidence the term in 'academia', i.e. in a number of well known university text books or in well established encyclopedias the way described here. It is against Wikipedia policy to invent a new definition for a term that has other implications. The fact that there is no consensus on the issue of Azeris or that the terminology is not that clear not for all users, is a clear indication that the term is not defined as per its known meaning. 203.48.45.194 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Iranian peoples is rarely defined on merely linguistic terms, and the definition presented in this article is in fact an inaccurate invention of some editors. There is nothing wrong with having an article on people who speak Iranian languages, in fact, it is great. But the title should reflect the contents. Iranian peoples is not exactly the same as Speakers of Iranian languages. Thus, the title should be changed to the more accurate one. Shervink 08:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  linguistic groups are not labeled as such. For example there is no speakers of Germanic languages but instead we have Germanic people. same goes for Slavic people and Iranian people is an academic term. So no need to change the title. What we need is to discuss the content of the article to make sure it is accurate. Gol 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because we do not have a word like Germanic people for Iranian languages, we can not use a term such as Iranian peoples and use it the same way as Germanic, Slavic and Turkic peoples are used. We can not invent words such as Iranic because it is against Wikipedia and we can not do research here. But the term Iranian peoples does not mean only "people who speak Iranian languages" as this article claims. It has a broader meaning. That is why this article claims to be an ethno-linguistic article. If pure language, then why not merge with Iranian languages? We really need to source why we use this term for speakers of Iranian languages. Where exactly this term was used first and which university text books and establsihed reliable encylopedias used this. Unfortunately, some of the references used in this article are not so reliable either. One of the most important encyclopedias around is Britanica, it does not define the word the way we have it here. What more can I say!!!! 203.48.45.194 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best title for this article 

message: Yes, Azeri's do speak a Turkic language today, that is undeniable.  BUt the thing is that Azeri's are ethnic Iranic's who have been Turkicised.
Here are somethings to consider:
-Turkish historians noted the language of the region to be Iranic in the 17 century.
-The name Azerbaijan is itself Iranic, meaning "land of fire"
-Iranians such as Babak fought for Irans independence from Arab rule. And that was before the Turkic migrations into the region, which shows that people of that region were origionally Iranic.
-Kurds and Talysh's make up 25% of the population in Iranian Azerbiajan.  And many Kurds have been moved from that region during the Perso-Ottoman wars because they were Sunni, and tended to support the Sunni Ottomans.
-The Safavids, who are said to be of Azeri origion, considered themselves Iranian.  Nadir Shah ahs even written on one of the coins that he had circulated during his reign that he is the King of Iran. Why would a Turk (or Turkic) person consider themselves King of Iran, the Land of Aryans? Because he considered himself Iranian.
-Azerbaijani's and Kurds are said to be descendents of the Medeans.  Many north Azeri's also acknowledge this.
So in conclusion, Azerbaijan and Azeri's ahve more to do with Iran and Iranic history than they do with Turkic's or Turkic history.Iranian Patriot 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of Azeris in this article is still being discussed, so unless we include them, we shouldn't have a picture of an Azeri woman. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can't include the Azeris. It seems that we are veering away from the purposes of this article. In fact, after having given a rendition of what the Iranian peoples are, how is it possible to actually trace the Azeris to an Iranic tribe, that is all of them in a manner similar to that of the Kurds, Persians, and Pashtuns who all speak Iranian languages? It's all heresay and without the language link any inclusion of other groups is not tenable. Furthermore, culture and history would include a great many people (including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, etc.) and render this article pointless, which it is not. It serves a purpose and explains the movements of the various Iranian peoples as a whole and their modern counterparts. By including other groups to appease one group, in this case the Persians, we open a pandora's box and the inclusion of the Azeris will simply turn this article into a Persian/Iran (the country) page rather than an academic view of the Iranian peoples. Giving them some peripheral mention is one thing, but counting them as an Iranian people is just not logical. Tombseye 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I don't mean to be "Mr. Killjoy", but it still has the Azeri woman in it. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last picture seems fine. Tombseye 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri's have more to do with Iran and Iranic peoples than they do with Turks 

message: It is very upsetting for me as an Iranian that one of the greatest ethnic groups of Iran can not be included but I am afraid, I have to agree with khoikhoi and tombseye. Yes being Iranian/Iranic is much more than just linguistic but language is the most important link. If we add them then it would be fair for Turkish editors to consider adding Kurdish people of turkey to the Turkic people article. After all, I am sure they have adapted some Turkish culture after being part of a Turkish country for so long and the only clear difference that they have with the Turks is their non-Turkic language. same goes for the Iraqi kurds. We can not have double standards. Azeri people are very much part of Iran and Iranian in culture but they do not speak and Iranian language and this is very important. Remember that this article is not about Iran or who did what, who was most loyal, or who has been there the longest; rather it is about an ethnic and linguistic group of people. Almost half of the members of this group don’t even live in Iran. Talking about Azeri people and other Turkish speaking Iranians in a separate section is a great idea but we can not add them to the list.
Sorry for the long message!Gol 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere opinion is that it is better to delete the article, and spread its contents over other articles such as Iranian languages etc., rather than leave it like this and not include the Azeris which are one of the most important ethnic groups of Greater Iran. I am not even an Azeri myself, but I do not know of a single Azeri person - and I know many - who wouldn't identify him/herself first and foremost as Iranian. What's the problem with stating that they are linguistically Turkic, but in most other ways Iranian? Besides, virtually all Azeris of Iran also speak Persian, as do all Iranians for that matter. The problem is the wrong definition on this page. Shervink 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're the one who recently changed the definition in the first place. There is a difference than being a citizen of Iran and one of the Iranian peoples. See User:Grandmaster's comment here. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're merging Iranian citizens with an academic category is the problem. Note that the Hazara, who have a great deal of Mongol ancestry are considered an Iranian people due to their language and culture and yet could be argued as a Turkic-Mongol group who just happen to speak an Iranian language. This article can't be merged into the Iranian languages article BECAUSE that article is specifically about the languages and the various evidentiary traits that classify them as Iranian languages. That article actually needs more work in order to compare grammatical forms, idioms, vocabulary etc., but that's where that article's emphasis is. This article is about the tribes and languages and cultures and how they are linked in various ways. Where else is this to be rendered? Where else can you get a picture of how this group of people came to be and how these languages and peoples were formed? It serves a purpose and there is plenty of room in the Turko-Iranian and Iranian Turkish articles to discuss how Iranian the Azeris are, at least according to some people. This article is not about that aspect. Why the need to keep the Kurds in (when some Kurdish editors felt that it was too orthodox to include them as an Iranian people) and then also incorporate the Azeris who don't even speak an Iranian language? Now at this rate, nationalism has come up with the Pashtun page where some people insist that the Pashtuns are not an Iranic people and that Pashto is not traced to Middle Iranian, but is actually a separate branch of the old Indo-Iranian group. Original research pure and simple that is not substantiated. This case is the same. I'm not saying the Azeris have a great many commonalities with Persians, Kurds, etc., but they are a Turkic people according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Bartley, and all the other sources that I've been given as evidence with the only mention being that they are Persian in culture. At this point, I can only conclude that this has more to do with nationalism than a rational choice to render an encyclopedic article about the Iranian peoples. Note in the article the various discussions of the various groups. The Croatians have a theory that they are not Slavs, but descendents of the Sarmatians so shall we add them? There is a place to discuss other views and then there is a place to explain the most commonly accepted academic perspectives on various peoples. Without that, we have chaos and I won't be able to argue that the Kurds cannot be included as a Turkic people since we will have lost any semblance of consistency. Tombseye 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tombseye, I think your previous post actually clarifies my point of view to a large extent. I have been saying all along that Iranian languages and Iranian peoples need two articles, not one, because Iranian peoples have a broader meaning than just language. You say the same in the previous post. Considering that as given, there is no reason to exclude Azeris from this article based on linguistic issues, since, as you pointed out, that is not the main concern here. Note also that, as you said yourself, Azeris are Persian in culture, at least in most respects. It goes without saying that the proper definition of this article would give equal weight to language and culture. There is nothing wrong with associating Azeris with Turkic and Iranian/Iranic people simultaneously. In fact, that would be more accurate, simply because they are affiliated with both. Shervink 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that problem can be addressed at the Turko-Iranian page. I'm actually adding more information on the matter to clarify things for people. Even a small sub-section regarding Turko-Iranian culture might be in order as well on both the Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples page to help clarify that these groups are often quite fluid. My main point here is that on this page we are talking about the Iranian peoples of the past who segue into the present and that makes the direct inclusion of the Azeris higly problematic. Tombseye 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what is problematic about the inclusion of Azeris. Azeris are very commonly considered Iranian, and they rarely state otherwise themselves. It is the exclusion of Azeris which needs clarification and is problematic, not their inclusion. Shervink 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're taking a Persian perspective rather than an academic one, but here's a compromise then. We can create a sub-section under ethnic groups regarding related and overlapping groups and include a discussion of the Azeris and not list them as an Iranian people as that is just viable within the parameters of this article. In fact it's already kind of started as I've been added information on the subject and the interaction between Persians and Azeris etc. Tombseye 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t think it is correct to include Azeris with Iranian people. I have nothing but respect for Iranian and Persian people, they are our brothers and sisters, but the ethnicity is based on the language, and Azeris are Turkic speakers. They belong to Turkic people, despite their close historical and cultural ties with Iranian people. Grandmaster 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  "ethnicity is based on the language"? Since when? Also I don't think Azeris have spoken Turkic languages from the begining. Although I doubt there is any historical evidence to support/oppose this -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Azeris belong to the same group as Yakuts and Gagauz, despite Azeris being culturally closer to Persians and not having much in common with many Turkic people. That is because all those people speak Turkic languages. So Azeris don’t belong to Iranian people, insisting on the opposite would not be an academic approach. On the other hand, there are close cultural ties between Azeris and Persian people, but this should be addressed a different way, not by inclusion of Azeris with Iranian people. Maybe a special section should be created for that in the article. Grandmaster 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm in a way. They may be called Turk because of their language, but historically speaking Azeris have been as Iranian as much as any other tribe in Iran -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is exactly the reason why they should be included within both groups, with a notice on each page to point out the relation to the other group. Shervink 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri people 

message: Why is this section even here? Does it say anything in particular about the Iranian peoples, or rather does it simply concerntrate on the Kurds? In case anyone is curious, there is already another biased article regarding the "genetic origins" of the Kurds. I find it curious that these speculative racialist theories are included here as fact, when they are simply the POV of a group of scientists. At any rate, I ask again - does this information belong here considering that it cannot be used to generalize millions upon millions of people spread across the region? I'd really like to know. SouthernComfort 07:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not 'racialist' at all. National Geographic now regularly employs genetic and genealogical tests to prove or disprove population movements, such as with the Phoenicians and the Mongols. It also gives us insights into cultural assimilation and is actually becoming quite common in academia. How is it biased if we find genetic markers that show Kurdish links to people in the Caucasus? They are still an Iranic people and also have common genes with Iranic people in addition so what's the problem? These tests, once a wider sample has taken place, will give us more insights. The Kurds will remain an Iranic people since they do possess the main criteria, an Iranian language as do the Ossetians and Hazara etc. the problem is that people think of these tests as a litmus test for race when they should be looking at the common genetic markers that show links between various peoples and to what degree. The question of cultural assimilation shows that the Azeris, who are bitter adversaries of the Armenians, are actually closely related to them. I'm more in favor of adding information than deleting it at any rate. If you have information or think the findings are controversial and can word it well, then add what you can. Tombseye 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this article is about the Iranian peoples in general and using a genetic study that focuses only on one group to make generalizations about the whole is POV. If you have genetic studies that compare similarities/differences between Iranian/Iranic populations, that's one thing. But as it is the section is rather speculative and this is unnecessary. As such, I suggest including only the first study since it does mention specific populations (according to the article: "Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks") - I haven't read the whole article, but it seems, however, that they only sampled populations from Iran. More details from that article could be incorporated here, i.e. how many were sampled, what regions were they from, etc. The second source appears to focus only on Kurds from Iraq (correct me I'm wrong). Again, there is already another article with this same exact information. My suggestion is to only include sources which collectively compare Iranian populations, rather than focus on a single group. SouthernComfort 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid argument. Actually, I didn't particularly want the Kurdish study myself, but then there are a lot of things that I don't want done that people insist upon for their own reasons. It's not easy since everyone is a critic and everyone wants something to be placed in a way that may make no sense. Now on the Pashtun page we have people who insist that the Pashtuns are not Iranic at all. It's a never-ending thing on wikipedia. Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with taking out the studies that don't talk about all the Iranian peoples and whatever you have in mind sounds okay to me. Tombseye 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: The term Īrān in Modern Persian comes from the Middle Persian term Ērān which in turn comes from the Old Persian term ariya-. In the 19th century the term ariya- was "discovered" by archeologists and linguists studying various Iranian texts - and it was later incorporated into Modern Persian with a very limited usage (usually having to do with the history of Iran, race, and nationalism). So, to make a long story short, you cannot find any mention of the exact word "Arya" or "Aryan" in any Persian text between 300AD-1800AD. You can find it after and before, but not in between. 
The term Ērān in MP, however, is a cognate of the OP ariya-. It's sad to see so many people going around saying "Iran means 'Land of Aryans'". How can a four-letter word mean "Land of Aryans"??? Iran, Eran, and ariya are altimately the same word: *arya- (the asterik means it's reconstructed). This "land of Aryans" business is probably coming from the other term Ērānšahr (MP pron.: airaan-shahr) which is usually translated "land of Iran" or "land of Iranians". But Iran by itself doesn't really mean anything. If you stretch it far enough you can say it means "noble", but I don't know where this "land of Aryans" nonsense is coming from. Probably some ultra-nationalist thing. Heh. AucamanTalk 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you said its nonsense, did you read the sources? How can you say Iran by itself doesn't mean anything when you have, your self, in the same paragraph, described where it comes from?!!! I can stretch it even further for you, Airyanem Vaejah, Aryana, Eranvej, Iran Shahr, Aryanam and Iran. It's always been pretty much the same title, but language has changed through out the time. It's sad to see a self pro-claimed "Iranian" denying his Aryan heritage  -  K a s h  Talk | email 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats your point? ofcourse the country had a different name under invasion! Thats just irrelevant  -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Land of Aryans"

message: About the picture, I like the current one but it might be a good idea to include some people who are NOT Iranians citizens. This way it would clearly, at first look, show the readers that this category has nothing to do with Iranian citizens. Hamid Karzai is a very good choice but all the other people are from inside the borders of Iran and more than likely Iranian citizens or children of Iranian citizens. Maybe a Kurdish citizen of Turkey or a Tajik person would be a good idea. Gol 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. The new picture now has a Persian Jewish guy from Israel that is still Iran-specific. I'd suggest, at the most 2 people from Iran, 1 Afghan, 1 Kurd, and someone from one of the other groups such as a Tajik, Baluch, Ossetian etc. Tombseye 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly interesting! I like how pictures are placed :) -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: The pic contains one Persian, one Kurd, an Afghan/Pashtun, a diaspora Canadian-Iranian, and a Persian Jew who are as Iranian as anybody else.  Also remember it is very hard to get copyrights to pics from creators, as I have done, which means the pic would not be deleted by Wiki.  I think the pics breath life into the article, as Wiki as an encyclopedia has the advantage of having these pics placed in articles, so they do matter.
Keep-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on collage 

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

message: Delete-Zmmz 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on picture of Israeli Defense Minister in the `Cultural Assimilation` section

message: *Include - I think we should only have an image of 1 Persian, to show the diversity in Iranian peoples is not limited to just Persians. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay calm man. I understand your frustration, I know how it feels. I can make the image if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on adding a famous Baloch, Ossetian, Talysh, or Hazara to the page

message: *Keep-Zmmz 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on the Hazara Girl picture 

message: *Delete- As such it is about Iranian peoples, and pictures of real people are more appropriate.Zmmz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on keeping cartoon picture such as the `Kurdish Sultan`, or replace them with real pictures

message: The term Iranic peoples is sometimes alternately used in order to avoid confusion as this article does not include Iranian Turks who are often considered a closely related cultural group to Iranian peoples throughout history and in modern times.
What does this sentence mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Togrol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2006.
:Well, that was written to placate some folks who wanted the Azeris to be mentioned in some capacity and their status clarified as a closely related cultural group. It would properly refer to all non-Iranic citizens of Iran of course in addition to Turks. Tombseye 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main or maybe the only reason to use the term IraniC is to avoid confusion with non-Iranian citizens. It has nothing to do with Turks or other peoples. The current way is too biased and should be corrected. Togrol 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the term Iranic was meant to be applied to people who speak Iranic languages first and foremost and then have some other common linkages to varying degrees. Thus, Afghans who are Pashtun and Tajik are Iranic, whereas Uzbeks aren't. Also though, it is meant to avoid confusion with the term Iranians which is popularly used to describe all Iranians who include non-Iranic peoples such as Arabs and Turks. Hope that helps. Tombseye 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranians and Turks?

message: This article is not about linguistics alone, nor is linguistics its main point. Linguistic and cultural factors should be considered when classifying people, both to the same extent. Even if you want to give the preference to one of them, it should definitely be culture rather than language. We speak of the Iranian cultural continent, not the linguistic continent. Azeris are just as Iranian as other Iranians, and I do not mean citizenship of modern Iran when I use that word. With the same reasoning, Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are Iranian people. No compromise on these points is acceptable here, as it would severely reduce the validity of the article. Also, the term Iranic is being taken too seriously. The term is not common in academia, although used sometimes. Making it the main terminology of choice, by using it throughout Wikipedia, is thus original research. Wikipedia cannot make this kind of decision. We must stick to the more common term Iranian. Shervink 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know then that there should be no problem with excluding the Kurds then. I mean since this article is turning into a Persian nationalist front article rather than an article about the Iranic peoples. Which ancient Iranic tribe are the Azeris to be linked to? What of their ties to the Oghuz Turks and the Caucasian Albanians and others? The Iranian peoples start with their language commonalities and then with other factors IN ADDITION. The Iranian languages article is about the languages and not the peoples who speak them. It's a very easy and clear distinction. And besides which we voted and most people favor keeping the article as is. You can't make unilateral decisions and go against the majority. Tombseye 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Azeris are Iranians

message: I removed them again. I realize it shows faces of members of various Iranian peoples. It still doesn't show "Iranian peoples", it shows "Iranian people" at best. It's a gimmick. In the interest of encyclopedicity, by all means present images of individuals, preferably in traditional garb or otherwise typical of specific ethnic groups, but label them individually (this is a Pashtun, this is a Persian, this is a Yaghnobi, etc.). Just showing a magazin cover, a model, and the Afghan president and labelling them "Iranian people" is ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the collage is silly, especially the magazine cover, but I can live with the improved caption. dab (ᛏ) 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't show Iranian peoples, it shows Iranian people". It's basically just the list turned into a picture, and I personally think it enhances the article. You're right, the magazine does look pretty weird, we can fix that if need be. It does seem that the Turkic, Slavic, and Germanic peoples pages don't have collages. —Khoikhoi 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imho, a map along the lines of :Image:Iran peoples.jpg (this particular map is too small, not showing Tajikistan etc.) showing the actual distribution of peoples would be rather more encyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely the magazine pic needs to be changed and I'm not a big fan of the picture myself as it's too similar to the peoples' pages, but hey I'm working with a give and take. I agree that it should show people of a more wide variety AND in native dress or something to denote the variability and two Persians (regardless of their religions is excessive). Also, I agree regarding a map. Tombseye 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the mugshots

message: I'm sorry to say this, but in the present way this article should be merged with Iranian languages. There seems to be an agreement among most editors (myself not included) that the premier focus here is the Iranian languages. If that is the case, this article is redundant and unnecessary. I propose to merge it with the article on Iranian languages. What do you think?Shervink 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Even if this group is purely linguistic still we have a Germanic languages and Germanic people. Slavic languages and Slavic people. why should it be different for iranian? Gol 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misreading the article as the Iranian language use is one factor, but the main starting factor. It's also impossible to merge this article as there is too much to burden Iranian languages with. Basically, the impasse is not over its content, but the desire to include a group that is not universally regarded as an Iranian people, the Azeris. That's what this is about. And where do we discuss the tribes of Iranian origin, what happened to them and the various peoples who speak Iranian languages? I agree with Gol's take regarding the Slavs and Germanic groups as well. Tombseye 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: The best title for the contents of this article is: Speakers of Iranian Languages. The question of merging this article with Iranian languages comes later. If an article with the name "Iranian peoples" should exist, that article should either be directed to Iran demographics or should include all Iranian peoples, includin Azeris. There is no strong evidence the term in 'academia', i.e. in a number of well known university text books or in well established encyclopedias the way described here. It is against Wikipedia policy to invent a new definition for a term that has other implications. The fact that there is no consensus on the issue of Azeris or that the terminology is not that clear not for all users, is a clear indication that the term is not defined as per its known meaning. 203.48.45.194 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Iranian peoples is rarely defined on merely linguistic terms, and the definition presented in this article is in fact an inaccurate invention of some editors. There is nothing wrong with having an article on people who speak Iranian languages, in fact, it is great. But the title should reflect the contents. Iranian peoples is not exactly the same as Speakers of Iranian languages. Thus, the title should be changed to the more accurate one. Shervink 08:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  linguistic groups are not labeled as such. For example there is no speakers of Germanic languages but instead we have Germanic people. same goes for Slavic people and Iranian people is an academic term. So no need to change the title. What we need is to discuss the content of the article to make sure it is accurate. Gol 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because we do not have a word like Germanic people for Iranian languages, we can not use a term such as Iranian peoples and use it the same way as Germanic, Slavic and Turkic peoples are used. We can not invent words such as Iranic because it is against Wikipedia and we can not do research here. But the term Iranian peoples does not mean only "people who speak Iranian languages" as this article claims. It has a broader meaning. That is why this article claims to be an ethno-linguistic article. If pure language, then why not merge with Iranian languages? We really need to source why we use this term for speakers of Iranian languages. Where exactly this term was used first and which university text books and establsihed reliable encylopedias used this. Unfortunately, some of the references used in this article are not so reliable either. One of the most important encyclopedias around is Britanica, it does not define the word the way we have it here. What more can I say!!!! 203.48.45.194 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best title for this article 

message: Yes, Azeri's do speak a Turkic language today, that is undeniable.  BUt the thing is that Azeri's are ethnic Iranic's who have been Turkicised.
Here are somethings to consider:
-Turkish historians noted the language of the region to be Iranic in the 17 century.
-The name Azerbaijan is itself Iranic, meaning "land of fire"
-Iranians such as Babak fought for Irans independence from Arab rule. And that was before the Turkic migrations into the region, which shows that people of that region were origionally Iranic.
-Kurds and Talysh's make up 25% of the population in Iranian Azerbiajan.  And many Kurds have been moved from that region during the Perso-Ottoman wars because they were Sunni, and tended to support the Sunni Ottomans.
-The Safavids, who are said to be of Azeri origion, considered themselves Iranian.  Nadir Shah ahs even written on one of the coins that he had circulated during his reign that he is the King of Iran. Why would a Turk (or Turkic) person consider themselves King of Iran, the Land of Aryans? Because he considered himself Iranian.
-Azerbaijani's and Kurds are said to be descendents of the Medeans.  Many north Azeri's also acknowledge this.
So in conclusion, Azerbaijan and Azeri's ahve more to do with Iran and Iranic history than they do with Turkic's or Turkic history.Iranian Patriot 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri's have more to do with Iran and Iranic peoples than they do with Turks