Azerbaijanis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 23, 2012 Featured article review Demoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Azerbaijanis live in Iran, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq and the United States, as well as Azerbaijan?
Current status: Former featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Azerbaijan C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Iran C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"They are the second-most numerous ethnic group among the Turkic-speaking peoples after Turkish people and are predominantly nominal Shia Muslims."

This would be true if it was only about ethnic Azerbaijanis in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Since most Azeris live in Iran, this statement is not true. Salazar the terrible (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate please? Beshogur (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: I believe user:Salazar the terrible is trying to say that the ref only deals with the Republic of Azerbaijan, not Iran. It does not cover the statement it is trying to support (that is, all Azeris being supposedly nominal Shia Muslims). The sentence should either be adjusted, or the ref/statement should be removed. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salazar the terrible and LouisAragon: If my memory serves me correctly, I added this a month or so ago without realising that the source does not refer to *all* ethnic Azerbaijanis. I've removed "nominal" now to correct this. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Great, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden Ah, Great. Salazar the terrible (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox's population estimates for Iranian Azerbaijanis have a number of problems that need to be addressed:

The "10.9-15 million" part is entirely superfluous. The CIA Factbook, Knüppel, Ethnologue, and Swietochowski are the four sources cited for it. According to Ethnologue and Swietochowski, there are 15,900,000 and at least 15 million Azeris living in Iran, respectively. Although Ethnologue source mentions 10,900,000, it actually refers to the number of Azerbaijani speakers, not the number of people with Azeri ancestry (the source reads: (Wider communication). 10,900,000 in Iran (2016). Ethnic population: 15,900,000 (2014 J. Leclerc)). It appears that Ethnologue was used incorrectly as a source for the 10.9 million figure. We can move both of these to the "15 million" section. I'd be grateful if someone could direct me to the CIA factbook's purported quote, 16% of 77,891,220, since I can't locate it anywhere in the source (including in the archived version). Regardless, if the quote is accurate, the source can be added to the infobox's "12–18.5 million" section. Regarding the Knüppel/Iranica source, I don't believe it's appropriate to use it as a source for numbers on the infobox because it makes no mention of any statistics for the Azerbaijanis of Iran and instead discusses the entire Turkic population in Iran.

Finally, the "15 million" portion of all three sources uses language indicating or implying that the number is higher than 15 million, not 15,000,000:

• Brittanica: more than 15 million in Iran
• Ethnologue: 15,900,000 [≈16,000,000]
• Swietochowski: at least 15 million

Thus, in my opinion, "15 million" should be changed to "15+ million". I'm ready to implement these changes, but I first want to hear any feedback. Thanks. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: I'm responding to your comment in this section so as not to complicate the discussion topic in the section below. I agree with the removal of Britannica. Meanwhile, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the 20 million number since it appears so commonly among academic works. One such example is Helena Bani-Shoraka's 2009 paper "Cross-generational bilingual strategies among Azerbaijanis in Tehran" which gives the estimate of between 15 and 20 million Azerbaijanis in Iran.

Regarding the organisation of the number headings, I continue to find the disposition odd. The fact that "12-18 million" and "15+ million" are separate headings despite the fact that one is mathematically included in the other is strange. I propose combining the two headings into a single "12-20 million" section, with the addition of the new sources for the 20 million number. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: seems like CIA doesn't use population % for Iran anymore. So we should remove that. Beshogur (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to locate it either. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because, as I said, it's updated regularly, probably they just removed the figures. Beshogur (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arakelova

I've now implemented the proposals above. While we are working to improve the infobox, I believe that the Arakelova source, which presents an extraordinarily small number for the population and is not supported by the majority of RS, should not be used. The recent entry about it at RSN by Ayıntaplı appears to support removing the source as a source for these numbers. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a conclusion made on Arakelova. The participation in my earlier entry was lower than I expected, ultimately getting ghosted. The percentage should be removed at the very least, because that is a clear contradiction with basic arithmetics, which we can call pseudomathematics and mathematical fallacy, thus pseudoscience, even if we took the source as completely reliable, because putting a statement like 1+1=11 would undermine Wikipedia's reputation. It is important to note that various non-RS published in peer-reviewed journals exist. In this case, the journal and Arakelova's relationship is also questionable. Thank you to anyone who states their opinion.Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Arakelova's "maximum less than 5 % of the population" is obviously a bit off, her 6-6,5 million estimate isn't (strictly mathematical speaking). Do we have proof that the latter is a fringe view? Because there are other sources with similar numbers, such as 5-5,6 million (based on a 2006 census, Asatrian, G. (2012), Étničeskaya kompozlclya Iran, page 60) and 9 million (Amanolahi, S. (2005), "A Note on Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in Iran", Iran and the Caucasus, page 37. This is already kinda pointed out in the RSN, including the fact that there isn't really a scholarly consensus regarding these numbers. While we're at this, why is a often unreliable source such as Britannica still being used? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bit off, but off by more 50 percent of the actual percentage for her estimate and the “maximum less than” also worsens the situation, which clearly resembles an informal rant. She cites Asatrian, her mentor and colleague, so their estimates aren't independent from each other. As per what I explained earlier, Amanolahi's is also a decade older and still a significantly higher estimate. On a different note: I am repeating myself, but regardless of this source’s reliability, what are we going to do about the percentage? That has been an unanswered question of mine since the abandoned discussion on the noticeboard. Is it okay to put a huge mathematical absurdity in the page, which readers can easily notice, just because it is what the scholar says? Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think this is a huge exaggeration. 6-6,5 million of 2011 population census was like what, around 7-8%? She said 5% was the maximum at best? She cites the numbers put by Asatrian, just like he she did Amanolahi. It's no different. What do you mean by your percentage question? The latter isn't listed in the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not around 7-8 %, but exactly from 7.98 % to 8.67 %. Both 5 % (let's not forget "maximum less than") and the aforementioned numbers are small, but percent error is relative to these two values not 100 %. The deflation is 59.6-73.4% even for her own estimation, and even middle schoolers can easily know that 6 million will not make 5% from a population of less than 100 million people, which is not justifiable for a supposedly peer-reviewed paper from an associate professor, with the exception of WP:BIASED. Peer-reviewed does not mean unbiased. That's why I am overemphasizing this, because it is impossible to see this as a simple mistake for an article that is checked through for multiple times and written by a professor. By the way, the percentage is listed on the body text in Azerbaijanis as well as on other pages, such as Ethnicities in Iran. Ayıntaplı (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is in a rather awkward stage now, being discussed simultaneously in two different places, here and (still) at my talk page [1]. Let's not continue on my talk page. Anyways, I don't think I need to explain the prominence of Iran and the Caucasus and Brill Publishers. As others have said (both in my talk page and the RSN), if there isn't any proper amount of literature that disputes the neutrality of Arakelova, I don't see a reason to dispute it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any reason to bloat your talk page and was planning to carry the discussion to his own talk page if LouisAragon responded. By the way, I am again repeating myself, but should the percentage be removed or stay? Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage should be removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you so much for this clear answer. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not only the percentages were removed, but also the 6-6,5 million number [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice. I'm correcting it now. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we can remove Britannica, if everyone agrees of course. See no problem with it. I've created another sub-section for other sources. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I am now completely abandoning the discussion on Arakelova, hopefully forever, not because I believe all points were addressed or full decisions were made by independent editors, but the amount of tension elicited just from the suggestion of a discussion is very disturbing to me, and I don't want to be a lonely "rookie" (as the person taking actions), although this issue started before I was aware of it with many other concerned users. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should act like a butthurt skunk regarding Arakelova's peer-reviewed paper. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources to be removed

The source for the total population is two decades old and deviates from the sum of the sources at hand. I think we can remove it. We can replace the removed sources with new ones from this decade or late 2010s. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Later, I'll try to find newer sources on the total number of Azerbaijanis. By the way, the #In Iran section needs to be rewritten to reflect the new estimates. Currently, nearly two paragraphs of text rely solely on Arakelova and do not mention any of the other estimates mentioned in the infobox. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear WP:UNDUE for a source that is faulty at best. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swietochowski is from 1999. It is old, so it should be removed or kept as a historical number. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian-speaking Albanian tribes are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of the region in the north of Aras river, where the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan is located.

Please remove modern-day. The use of "is" shows that the present republic is indicated; if a past republic were indicated, the verb would be "was". 192.180.91.15 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@192.180.91.15:  Done — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think there is a mistake in the numbers of Azerbaijanis living in Republic of Azerbaijan. There are more than 9 million Azerbaijani population written (91.6% in cia.gov and stat.gov.az) in the sources, but on the wikipedia page, it is written as around 8 million. Vusal1771 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vusal1771: In both sources, the ethnic percentage numbers are given for 2009, when the total population of the country was 8,922,447. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. Thanks for answering. Vusal1771 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be consistent with the article about Iranian Azerbaijanis, i edited the lead accordingly. All constructive remarks are welcome.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with this article, but with the Iranian Azerbaijanis article. I could provide numerous scholarly sources that describe Azeris as a Turkic ethnic group. To question this is unreasonable. The fact that their origins have mixed with Iranians and Caucasians does not negate their Turkic identity. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our best sources describe this group's identity as being Turkish speaking and Shiite, take a look at what Frye says. A solution could be to write Turkish speaking group in the lead, but the current lead is in contradiction with what is said at Iranian Azerbaijanis since this ethnic group includes the Iranian Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying here. Frye is not only source and Frye doesn't even say such thing. Beshogur (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I agree with @Dêrsimî62:'s edit on the lead. Mention of "mixed heritage" is WP:SYNTH. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm trying to do ? unlike you, i just try to go by what reliable sources say. By the way, just stop labeling every content you don't like on Wikipedia as being "SYNTH", you seem to ignore what WP:SYNTH says, because you don't read the sentences until the end, so i quote it for you : "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." Thus, combining sources is not a problem, but implying conclusions not supported by either of the sources is. If we are not able to find a common ground then i'll open a RfC.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those statements are not explicitly stated in the sources. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion This is exactly what it is about "mixed heritage". Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think about this when reverting, since it wasn't pointed out by Dêrsimî62. Feel free to change the article if others agree. Aintabli (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again you ignore what Frye says : "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers", Thus, they have mixed heritage while being mainly of Iranian descent.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Here is the full quote. Plus the problem is combining various sources and adding as one sentence. Beshogur (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, combining sources is not a problem, as i quoted just before. Please read the guideline yourself if you want.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you don't read the sentences untill the end ... it says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.", but Frye explicitly says that Azerbaijanis are mainly of Iranian descent.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to change all occurrencies of garble(d), corrupt(ed) when referring to linguistic changes. Words don’t rot or corrupt, they just change with time and/or when adapted by another language Torzsmokus (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about what the academic sources say, if they say that words corrupt, then that's it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azeri (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]