Jump to content

Talk:Tajikistani Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Name Change

[edit]

I think this page needs a name change, and it's best if it happens now before it grows any larger. The problem is that to call the civil war in Tajikistan the "Tajikistan Civil War" is grammatically incorrect. Tajikistan is a noun, not an adjective. It is like saying "America Civil War", rather than "American Civil War", or "Russia Revolution", rather than "Russian Revolution." It would be correct to call this article "Tajik Civil War", but many people have expressed concern that using the word Tajik to describe anything about Tajikistan is not sensitive to the ethnic diversity of the country.

I think two useful alternatives are "Tajikistani Civil War" and "The Civil War in Tajikistan." I'm more partial to the later, because many people, especially scholars, don't use the word "Tajikistani." There is no consensus amongst academics that Tajikistani is better than Tajik. The name "The Civil War in Tajikistan" might have two extra words, but it's certainly not too long or confusing.

I think it's important to have this discussion because history has not decided yet what to call this war. There's no comprehensive source in English on the subject, and what ever Wikipedia calls this war is likely to become a standard name for the war.

Anyone got an opinion on this? I'll let this message stay up for a while and if after a week or so there are no comments I'll make the official name change proposal. --David Straub 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of moving it to Civil War in Tajikistan or better yet Civil War of Tajikistan. What do you think? -- Aivazovsky 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. Let's wait a few more days for any other suggestions and then make a proposed move. --David Straub 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the article has been moved to Civil War in Tajikistan. However, I'm beginning to think that the name that sounds the best is "Tajik Civil War." Sure it doesn't encompass every ethnic group in the country but neither does the name "Georgian Civil War" which is used to describe the unrest in Georgia which involved conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The same can also be said of the "Russian Civil War" - Russians weren't the only group to be part of that conflict. -- Aivazovsky 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tajik Civil War sounds better too, but some very educated Tajiks I've met disagree with that term, because it sounds like Tajiks vs. Tajiks fighting, when they contend that it was actually the work of non-Tajik outsiders. The current title is probably as non-controversial as we'll get. ––David Straub 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing?

[edit]

Describing the violence in the civil war as ethnic cleansing seems like a strong POV. To label the violence against Islamic groups of tajikistan as ethnic cleansing, there should be more credible references. Who has called it "ethnic cleansing"? Human Right Watch? Soros Institute (Open Sosiety Institute)? I checked the report by Human Right Watch. It doesn't mention "ethnic cleansing". It talks about ethnic conflicts, and even "ethnic hatred". But referring to any violence (partly associated with ethnic conflicts) as ethnic cleansing doesn't make sense. Jahangard 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangard, did you read both sources? You keep mentioning that you checked the The HRW report, but did you read the OSI report? And there are two paper sources, have you ever heard of a library? I'm reposting the the response I gave to Jahangard's simliar accuasations for Garmis.

Wow! There's a lot of big allegations in that one. I think Jahangard should really study a little bit more about the history of Tajikistan before he does many more edits. He should also read all of the sources before making dangerous allegations as above. If he had read the second source, as well as the two paper sources cited, he would have noted a clear and consistent historiography pattern that there is a concensus amongst researchers that there was a massacre of Garmis and Pamiris. Actually I don't think any except Jahangard dispute this fact and the only reason he does is because he is obviously completely ignorant of the Civil War in Tajikistan. The second source listed was published by the Open Society Institute and states, which is there for Janhangard to plainly see, that:

"The Kulobis, led by prominent local criminals and now named the Popular Front, launched a campaign to kill or expel all Garmis from the south, looting and burning their villages. Having completed that, the Popular Front pressed on to Dushanbe, where they arrested and killed scores of prominent Garmis and Pamiris, often on the mere presumption of their sympathy with the opposition." Tajikistan: Refugee Reintegration And Conflict Prevention

Note the the phrase “campaign to kill or expel all Garmis from the south.” This happened in 1992 and 1993 and is clearly documented by OSI, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations, amongst others. There is no original research going on here, but there are some fallacious accusations based on total ignorance being tossed around here.--David Straub 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked OSI report. It hasn't mention "ethnic cleansing" either. Anyway, mentioning HRW report as refeerence for a sentence, when it doesn't support that sentence, is not acceptable. About OSI report, you can mention these allegation ("killing prominent Garmis on the mere presumption of their sympathy with the opposition") as their claim and their analysis (not as undoubtable facts). Jahangard 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just give a direct quote? Khoikhoi 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much better. Jahangard 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will conceded this point: that neither article explicitly uses the term ethnic cleansing. But if you read the sources and compare them to the definition of ethnic cleansing given in wikipedia on ethnic cleansing then you see that what happened to Garmis and Pamiris in the fall of 1992 and winter of 1993 fits the definition of ethnic cleansing.
The first definition from the wikipedia article is: “ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.”
The second definition is: “[E]thnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.”
Now read the HWR that Jahangard has complained doesn’t mention anything about ethnic cleansing:
“Pro-government paramilitary groups entered Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, on December 10, 1992. Led by the Popular Front of Tajikistan, the main pro-government army in the civil war, they conducted a campaign of summary executions and "disappearances" of people of Pamiri and Garmi (regions of Tajikistan that had supported the DPT-IRP coalition) origins, killing more than 300 and "disappearing" hundreds of others. According to eyewitnesses interviewed by the Moscow-based human rights group Memorial and Helsinki Watch, Popular Front soldiers and other pro-government forces stopped buses and trolley buses, stopped people on streets, and deployed forces at the Dushanbe airport in order to check individuals' documents. In many instances, those whose passports indicated that they were born in Pamir or Garm were killed or simply taken away and not heard from again. Graves containing as many as twenty or thirty corpses were exhumed in several places in and around Dushanbe.
The Popular Front committed summary executions in villages on the outskirts of Dushanbe after DPT-IRP rebels had already retreated, and, in at least one instance, the village of Subulak, in places that had never been a base for rebels. In another village called Kyrgyzon in January, the Popular Front, apportioning to itself law enforcement responsibilities, arrested and executed a thirty-one-year-old man (of Garmi origins) whom a neighbor had accused of murder. The summary execution was preceded by a two-minute "people's trial" in front of villagers.
….It is not known how many people disappeared in 1993. The disappeared were principally individuals who supported the DPT-IRP coalition or who were of Pamiri or Garmi origins. Their captors were paramilitary bands and warlords, mainly from Kuliab, one of the regions of Tajikistan that supports the current government. In some cases law enforcement officials mayhave been involved in the disappearances. A highly-placed Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) official, in an informal conversation with Memorial, alleged that MVD staff members sometimes collaborated in kidnapping. In addition, he stated that the MVD was most likely aware of the general pattern of disappearances and the reported existence of so-called "informal prisons." In the second half of 1993, disappearances became more professional and, in at least two cases, took place in the full view of local government or law enforcement officials.”
Is it just my POV that an ethnic cleansing campaign occurred or do all the sources I’ve cited in the article agree? I know only two of the sources are available online, but if need be others will be posted.––David Straub 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis of HRW report is an example of unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position, which is the definition of Original Research in Wikipedia. Jahangard 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jahangard, what exactly is your problem with this article? That the term ethnic cleansing is used or that historians, NGOs, and the UN have documented the fact that Garmis were killed in mass, raped, expelled from their homes. Don't forget, you didn't just tag this article for "Ethnic cleansing", you also tagged the Garmis article for use of the term "massacre". Is massacre to strong of a word? Is it original research to use that term? Do you think it is POV to use negative terminology to describe how thousands of Garmis and Pamiris were murdered and tens of thousands of their surviving relatives were driven from their homes over the border into Afghanistan where they had to live as refugees for most of the 1990s? I definately thought you walked over the POV line when you tagged the Abolqasem Lahouti with a Iranian Poets category, considering the fact that Abolqasem Lahouti is notable because he's a national hero in Tajikistan.––David Straub 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THE HOLY GRAIL HAS BEEN FOUND!!! A HWR report that uses the term "ethnic cleansing"!!!! [Human Rights Watch Press Backgrounder on Tajikistan] from Oct 05 2001. The article states the following
“The war's greatest destruction and toll in civilian deaths was in the south, where Kuliabis and their allies conducted campaigns of "ethnic cleansing" against local residents of Gharmi and Pamiri origin.”
I’ve changed the wording of the article so that the above source is for the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” and that the term is contributed to Human Rights Watch.
Jahangard, I’ll give you the pleasure of removing the “accuracy dispute” tag :))))) ––David Straub 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jahangard, I think I've been a bit mean and uncivil about this. You had a legitimate question. Thanks for removing the tag. I hope there are no hard feelings.--David Straub 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this issue was up more than 3 years ago, but... Claiming it to be "ethnic cleansing" cries out the question: what is "ethnicity"? Is Pamiri regional identity really "ethnicity"? And the fact that you found a HRW report that uses a word "ethnic cleansing" isn't really a valid argument, is it? I'd rather go with Olivier Roy and Lena Jonson who have written books on the issue (and said it to be regional) rather than HRW reports (written by people who have really never been to Tajikistan). Minff (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is wrong

[edit]

The picture used here is also used in the article on Dushanbe riots, which were in 1990 and directed against Armenian refugess from Azerbaidzhan. The title of the file says 1990. In other words, it does not belong here, since the article does not relate what happened after 1992 to what happened in Dushanbe two years before.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other picture? InfocenterM (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Tajikistani Civil War. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Civil war in Tajikistan → Tajik Civil War – Must be consistent with articles in <demonym> Civil War format. Also concise. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik Civil War or Tajikistani Civil War? The demonym for the country is Tajikistani, and from what I understand (I could be wrong) "Tajik" usually refers only to the country's main ethnic group. Grutness...wha? 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically correct or not, "Tajikistani Civil War" is the least commonly-used name. I found several sources using it, but I'll present this year's sources instead: [1][2]. Many sources use "Tajik"; here are recent examples: [3][4][5][6][7]. Some of these sources use the current title, and this and that prove it. --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With or without an "i" at the end? George Ho (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without i at the end. This form seems more common. Khestwol (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really common. I found sources using it ([8][9][10][11]), but it's still not common. However, per WP:COMMONNAMES, even when commonly used, a name/title must be accurate and unambiguous. George Ho (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Khestwol's suggestion. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it's safe to say that even though we may not be in agreement on the right new name, we're all opposed to the current name, as am I. My personal preference is Tajik Civil War but I could except the other two proposals. Charles Essie (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Tajik Civil War" only – "Tajikistan" is not an adjective, and therefore cannot appear before "Civil War" in proper English. The correct adjective is "Tajik", and it must be used. "Tajik Civil War" is not ambiguous, because no part of the Afghan Civil War is ever called the "Tajik Civil War" by RS, rendering his concerns moot. This war, on the other hand is. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tajikistan" can function as an adjective here. We have instances on English Wikipedia where the names of the stan countries do function as adjectives. See for example Yusufzai (disambiguation), where the phrase "an Afghanistan footballer" is used 3 times. There are also instances I have seen where "Kazakhstan" has been used as an adjective for anything/anyone relating to Kazakhstan. It is "Kazakhstan Stock Exchange" and "Kazakhstan Academy of Sciences", not "Kazakh Stock Exchange" and "Kazakh Academy of Sciences". Alternatively, we can also move this article to "Tajikistan's Civil War", however that would be less WP:CONCISE so I do not prefer that. "Tajik" is an ethnonym for the Tajiks (just as "Kazakh" is for the Kazakhs), it is not exclusively a demonym for someone from present-day Tajikistan. This article is meant to cover the present-day Tajikistan, not the entire Tajik territory (which also includes Afghan areas, but excludes Pamiri areas of eastern Tajikistan). Therefore saying "Tajikistan Civil War" is also more WP:PRECISE. Khestwol (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: but if George Ho and RGloucester insist so much on grammatical correctness then I am also fine with "Tajikistani Civil War" (with the i). Khestwol (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't insisting on which one is more correct; in fact, all of them are. Out of all correct titles, "Tajik" looks most common. But since you prefer "Tajikistan", that's fine and also correct. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tajikistan" is more common than "Tajikistani", Khestwol. George Ho (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "Tajik" is not a clear word for something relating to "Tajikistan". It is in fact either "Tajikistan" or "Tajikistani". Khestwol (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks though for agreeing with "Tajikistan Civil War" too. I am ok with both "Tajikistan Civil War" and "Tajikistani Civil War". Khestwol (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tajikistani Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Armenians in the conflict

[edit]

There was not any anti-Armenian unrest during the war. I think that it should be delited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.237.47 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete it, as it ain't backed by a single source.--83.37.244.205 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Not moved and withdrawn by nominator. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistani Civil War → Tajik Civil War – Most people reffer to it like this. Plus, it’s just like the 2022 Kazakh unrest page name, which does not use “Kazakhstani” in its name. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rreagan007. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox "Result"

[edit]

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tajikistani_Civil_War&oldid=1237485291"