User talk:Artacoana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Two Articles in need of your attention[edit]

There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created by Pan-Turkists-- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:

The term Turko-Persian Tradition (or Turco-Persian) does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture (Persian, Kurdish, Azari, Baluchi, Tajik, Luri, Gilaki, Talishi, Mazandarani, etc.), and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.

Any contributions would greatly appreciate – please add your comments, whether you agree with the deletion, or otherwise to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turco-Persian as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turko-Persian Tradition. Bā Sepās Surena 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Greek to me[edit]

Greetings. I just wrote the page Greek to me. I am comparing similar expressions in other languages. I was wondering if you would be able to add the expression in any languages with which you are comfortable. Btw, I just found your page/profile by running a search for users who have a level 4/level 5 ability in non-English languages. Thanks much! samwaltz 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Noh Gonbad[edit]

Please see Talk:Haji Piyada. Thanks. --Vssun (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. --Vssun (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Shocking News: AfghanMellati´s Name Change of Herat[edit]

Herat´s name changing --188.107.12.104 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.196.21 (talk)

I saw your link. Please avoid placing unrelated links on Wikipedia. Use my email address which is written in my user page.--Artacoana (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rumi[edit]

I kept your edit, I just changed "today's Tajiks" to "Tajik". You got to keep in mind that at time, Tajik and Persian meant the same thing, and using today's definitions for a historical character is problematic. It's like labeling a medieval German born in today's Austria, as Austrian. But nonetheless, I kept the Tajik designation for clarity , even though none of the cited sources use it. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the categories and templates on the historical dynasties. I agree with you about the categories, but having too many templates, make these pages look like a mess. What do you say we remove Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan ones, and stick to the Grater Iran one, which is not about today's Iran, and covers all the aforementioned countries? Kurdo777 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dusti Azizi, Artacoana; Your edit doesn't match WP:Synthesis. There is no source that says Rumi was a Tajik. Tajiks and Persians are same, and I don't understand why you insist on this matter which is not important. Do you have a special reason for this? I am going to remove it from the article, but if you still believe it's necessary to include the word Tajik, let me know your reasons here. Baa Sepaas. --Aliwiki (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ali aziz, when you use ethnicity and origin, then you should use a term which doesn't create confusion. Today Tajiks of Afghanistan and Tajikistan are called Tajik and not Persian. Even though they are part of Persian people, but the term Tajik is applied formally to refer to these people. A good example is the German priest Martin Luther who lived in a time when his homeland (today's Germany) was called Holy Roman Empire. He is known as a German priest and not as a Roman. Another good example is Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer who lived during Prussian rule, but he is known as a Polish astronomer and not Prussian. When you say Rumi or Avicenna were ethnically Persian, then most people (not everyone knows the history of Persian empire) think they must have originated from Iran (with today's geographic boundaries). I have seen many Iranians who do believe that Rumi and Avicenna only belongs to Iran, as a result of this confusion. Furthermore, since the eleventh century, the term Tajik has been applied by the Turks to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan (Encyclopaedia Iranica: TAJIK i. THE ETHNONYM: ORIGINS AND APPLICATION). Therefore, both terms of "Persian" and "Tajik" should be used to refer to these people to avoid confusion. This is a common sense and I've added references to the definition of Tajik. Further sources are not needed.--Artacoana (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read my comment about the templates? Are you OK with my proposal? Kurdo777 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fine Kurdo777 jaan.--Artacoana (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon! I read your input and I agree with the user Kurdo777. There are two problems with using Tajik in the designation. It is absolutely and in no way a contention on his origin but you have to keep in mind that Tajik at the time DID not exist. It is only recent era that after the break up of the Persian empire, and the recent break up of the Soviet Union that the term Tajik has been known. The other problem is your source really does not make a mention of Avicenna. Bring a reliable source that you believe specifically refers to him as Tajik and I will put it back up. For now however as per Wikipedia rules, regarding references, no mention of Avicenna is made and also timewise, there was no coherent defition of "Tajik" at the time of his birth as it was all part of the Persian empire after the arab invasion. So in a way you can not even say he was tajik, as he could have been a number of possible Persian Sub-ethnic groups. At any rate, I really understand where you are coming from and I applaud your attempt at clarifying this but as per policy and the fact that your source does not deal with Avicenna and also to prevent the article to turn into a cultural battle. I am going to revert "Persian (Tajik)" to simply presian and remove the link from Encyclopedia which is a wonderful description of the Tajik Persians and their wonderful contributions but really has nothing to do with Avicenna. Cheers and I look forward to reading more of your wonderful additions. :) Dr. Persi (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mr Persi! When you talk about origin and ethnicity, you should realise that Avicenna, Rumi and many others came from a region where the native inhabitants are called Tajik. Persian is the name of an ethnicity which is formally used for the Persian speaking inhabitants of Iran with today's geographical boundaries. The term Tajik has been applied to Persian muslims of Greater Khorasan and Oxus basin since the 10th century (the time of Avicenna and many more). I don't need to give you any more reference, it's a common sense. Avicenna was a Tajik and Tajiks have been and still are the native inhabitants of the region. So long the term Tajik is formally applied to these people, it should be used for their scientists. It's as simple as that!--Artacoana (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avicenna. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Just so we're clear here - I've declined the page protection because I'm not going to favor one of these warring parties over the other. The next reversion at that article, regardless of who does it, and I'll block all three of you for WP:3RR violations because you're all over the limit. KrakatoaKatie 04:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On Racial/Ethnic Origins of historical personages[edit]

Hi Artacoana, I've been studying your contribs after noticing some of your edits and I think that you make many good points and edits, especially in your inclusion of using the descriptor of "Greater Iran." And I am concerned that your approach to the racial/ethnic origin of historical personages of Iranian descent may be in contradiction to common nomenclature and accepted usage. Accusations of a racial group being stealers and chauvinists not only breaks wiki civility guidelines, it also shows a distinct POV without consideration to the work of others editors. I might recommend that you bring issues that you may have onto the talk page and allow editors to discuss and reflect on your points, instead of your promotion of your point through blanket edits. Let me know if I can help. GoetheFromm (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say all Iranians/Persians are chauvinists or stealers of cultural heritage, I said only few. And I have my reasons for it. Let's have a look at the following examples:

Well, if you don't call this chauvinism, then tell me what is it then? --Artacoana (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tajik[edit]

Please do not the ethnicity Tajik to a historical biography unless you have a reliable source which explicitly states the person was a Tajik. What you did here and here is a form of WP:SYN. This is not allowed and repeatedly adding these kind of claims is a good way to get yourself banned. —Ruud 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ruud, if you want to insist on only sources, then at least a valid one should be used and that is the Encyclopædia Iranica. Iranica is dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. This Encyclopædia is an international, collaborative project, based at Columbia University in the City of New York. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA in Iranica. What Iranica does mention is his birthplace and the birthplace of his father and mother and at the same time "Iranica states that The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān)." AND "By the eleventh century the Turks applied this term more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan" (i.e. the homeland of Avicernna). Iranica must be the only valid source used for disputed articles.--Artacoana (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No, read it again, WP:SYN was written exactly to disallow the argument you make (Source X says A is a B, Source Y says that under certain circumstances Bs are Cs, therefore Wikipedia should says A is a C). What you need is a reliable source that directly states that "A is a C". This argument has come up before relating to historical scientist being of Tajik ethnicity. I have looked through several reliable biographical dictionaries on historical scientists and none support this claim. If you believe this is somehow wrong or incorrect, please correspond with the editors of these biographical dictionaries and if they decide to update them it could be incorporated into Wikipedia as well, but not before that time. —Ruud 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This is total self-interpretation. Under which circumstances? A reliable source is Iranica which doesn't use the ethnicity Persian for Avicenna. Britannica is not an acceptable source for Iranian studies and the history of region. --Artacoana (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. Not all Persians are Tajiks, some may be, but it is up to historians, not Wikipedia editors, to decide which label to use. If historians consistently use Persian, Wikipedia should use Persian and not Tajik. Regarding Avicenna, I'm not claiming he should be labelled "Persian" but that he certainly shouldn't be labelled "Tajik", unless you have a reliable source explicitly labelling him as such. —Ruud 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
True, today not all Persians are Tajik, but the Persians of Central Asia, where Avicenna is originated from ARE TAJIK. Furthermore, Encyclopaedia states that even today's Persians of Iran were once called Tajik.--Artacoana (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You're just making the exact same argument again (Source X says A is a B, Source Y says that under certain circumstances Bs are Cs, therefore Wikipedia should says A is a C). This type of argument, whether you like it or not, is not allowed (WP:SYN). —Ruud 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Under which circumstances for God sake? Is there any experienced administrator who is familiar with the history of Central Asia? This is totally ridiculous an unacceptable.--Artacoana (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point here, I think. Let me rephrase the above comment for clarity:
You're just making the exact same argument again (Source X says A is a B, Source Y says that some Bs are Cs, therefore Wikipedia should says A is a C). This type of argument, whether you like it or not, is not allowed (WP:SYN).
If you want input from another administrator try WP:AN. —Ruud 01:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He (Artacoana) has added the following statement "his father was from Balkh, Afghanistan and his mother from Bukhara" using his source which is basically Encylopedia Iranica. I read the source, is it just me or I cant find EVEN ONE WORD about Avicenna or his parentage? Dr. Persi (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

dPersi! if you open your eyes, you will find the following: -He was born in Afšana, a village near Bukhara. His father, who had moved in from Balḵ (BALKH, Afghanistan, NOT IRAN) a few years previously, Sorry he is not born in your counrty and neither of his parents originates from your country. This fake ethnicity won't be here for long! The time will solve everything. I have sent an email to Britannica. This won't take long, I promise you Pesi!--Artacoana (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Good, if you believe there is an error in the world's collective knowledge get it fixed in reliable sources first, then, and only then, it can be changed in Wikipedia as well. Regarding his parents, Iranica generally is a reliable source and Artacoana is right about what it says about Avicenna's father. About his mother I could find nothing more than

"There is no reason why the names of Avicenna’s mother [...] should have survived unaltered, or at all, for more than 150 years until Bayhaqī’s time. Such information, even if it had survived orally in the popular tradition, lends itself easily to falsification."

Ruud 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill publication, University of Leiden) is an Encyclopaedia of Islamic studies. Neither this Encyclopaedia nor Iranica gives any reference to the ethnic origin of Avicenna. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Vol.3: Ibn Sina) mentions the birthplace of Avicenna's mother:
QUOTE: "He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara."

--Artacoana (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That also seems okay. The article should probably follow EoI and state that his native language, instead of his ethnicity, was Persian. —Ruud 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my take on the issue. What we need to do is as add Tajiks into the Persian people article rather than try to make anachronistic changes to other article. Of course putting Persian(Tajik) is the second option, but I do not think the first optinion is much better (change the Persian people article). I know there are some ignorant Iranians who think Persian only means people from Iran. However, Artacoana should know majority of people are not as ignorant (specially scholars). So what we need to do doost-geraami is to change the definition of Persian people in Wikipedia rather than let some Iranians claim all the credit for the term Persian. Iranica and Encyclaopedia of Islam also state his native language as Persian. B) D. Gutas, "Avicenna", in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Version 2006, (LINK); excerpt: "That he should have written poems in Persian (Farsi), his native and everyday language, is probable" Native language and ethnicity are the same thing in that era since the word "native" denotes ethnicity. C) Ibn Sina ("Avicenna") Encyclopedia of Islam. 2nd edition. Edited by P. Berman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Henrichs. Brill 2009. Accessed through Brill online: www.encislam.brill.nl (2009) Quote: "He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian." It is true Avicenna was born in Bukhara under the Samanid era and then after the collapse of the Samanids, he fled the Ghaznavid domain and went under the Buyids. However, this large domain was not called Afghanistan then. It was called Iran.

In gathering (approximately 940 C.E.) of the Samanid rule for a remembrance of Abu Ja'far Banuwiyah, Rudaki Samarqandi one of the first Persian poets praises this Saffarid ruler. Abu Ja'far is praised as the king of Iran, ruler of Azadegan (another term for Iranians) and descendant of Sassanids: “ شادی بوجعفر احمد بن محمد آن مه آزادگان مفخر ایران .. خلق همه از خاک و آب و آتش و بادند وین ملک از گوهر آفتاب ساسان .. آن ملک نیمروز و خسروپیروز دولت او یوز و دشمن آهوی نالان Translation: The happiness brought by Abu Ja'afar Ahmad ibn Muhammad, The ruler of the Azadegan and the pride of Iran .. The creatures are created from dust and water, fire and wind And this king is from the illuminous jewel of Sassan .. That king of the age and the victorious Khusraw His fortune like a leopard, his enemies like fleeing deers.


However, on the term "Tajik" itself, it should be mentioned that in Afghanistan, the other term is "Farsi-Zuban" and "Farsi-Waan" (Persian). The term Tajik is general designation used by Turks with regards to Iranians. Originally, it was used by Zoroastrians (probably Manichean Soghdians too) and Armenians to denote Arabs rather than Persian. However, as Persians converted to Islam, this term began to be used for Persian Muslims. It passed on from Iranian speaking Soghdians to Turks and the Turks started to call all Iranians as Tajik. What is clear that aware Persians (like Rudaki or Ferdowsi) have used the term "Iranian", "Parsi", "Parsi-Dari". In Iran too, still the Qashqai nomads call Persian speakers as "Tajiks". The term Tajik was much more used in the Safavid and Qajar Iran for Persians. Given all this, I believe that Persians of Tajikistan/Afghanistan should call themselves by their native name within their own language which is "Iranian/Persian". The Iranica article also states: "the Fārsiwān (from fārsi-zabān ‘Persian-speaking,’ a name given to them by the Pashtuns), in the west. Neither can properly be called Tajiks. Though nowadays accepted proudly as an autonym (self-designation), the name Tājik was in origin a heteronym, conferred on the Tajiks by others. It did not always have its current connotations, and the Tajiks of today were not always so called. There is some scholarly controversy, and even more popular misunderstanding, surrounding the name.". However I disagree and Farsi-Wan, Tajik are all the same "Persians of Iranian origin". It also states: "The modern meaning of “Tajik” has been distorted in Tajik-language and Russian academic usage (both Soviet and post-Soviet) by the propaganda of the complementary agendas of Soviet nationalities policy and Tajik nationalism, so that the tail often wags the dog. In most scholarly writing on Persian literature and cultural history (of Iran and India as well as Central Asia) the adjective is usually construed as “Perso-Tajik” or “Tajik-Persian” poetry, historiography, etc., in an atopical and anachronistic application of the national ethnonym to the entire Persianate world: e.g., persidsko-tadžikskaia leksikografiia v Indii ‘Perso-Tajik lexicography in India’. This development was due largely to an understandable attempt by influential Tajik writers such as Ṣadr-al-Din ʿAyni and Bobojon Ghafurov, co-opted into the Soviet enterprise, to use Moscow’s own divide-and-rule nationalities policy against Moscow and Tashkent, in order to forestall assimilation of the Tajiks into Stalin’s Greater Russia or (a more immediate threat) Turkic Uzbekistan.".. Given all this, I believe we Iranians (including the Persian speakers of Tajikistan and Afghanistan) should refer to ourselves by the name which our ancestors called themselves in the Sassanid era "Iranian". In Western usage Persian is correct. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Khodabandeh14 aziz, thank you very much for your wise and academic analysis on this matter. I know that most of these new identities were the result of foreign or imperialistic manipulations. There is also a political and religious role in preventing unity of Iranian people. But let's be realistic. We live in today's time and we are aware of the political problems in the region. Also let's accept that there is a chauvinistic feeling among few Persians of Iran which also worsen the situation. Today, we see a good unity among Turkic and Arab people, but not among Persians. This is the world we live in and we need to be realistic. So long Tajiks in Afghanistan and Tajikistan are called Tajik, their cultural heritage must be preserved and not claimed by outsiders. It's as simple as that! Thank you again for your kind intake on this issue! Regards, --Artacoana (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dorood Doost Aziz, There are ignorant Iranians no doubt and I had an argument with one who thought that the term Persian is exclusive for people in modern Iran, and tried to belittle a person from Afghanistan who also said he was Persian. Anyhow, ignorance can only be fought with knowledge. But the knowledge needs to be implemented with calm and effective action, not reaction. For example, as you noticed, all the European and Western sources use "Persian" for say Avicenna (he himself uses the term "Farsi" for his language and if you ask him to wrote in "Tajiki" he would not know what that is). You know well that the language by the name "Tajiki" is a Soviet invention (although the ethonym Tajik used by others to refer to Persian Muslims first came before the Soviet invasion). The issue is that the term Persian must not be monopolized by only people from Iran. This is simply wrong. Similarly is the term Iranian. As I noted, the Turks of Qajar, Safavids and even Qashqai ones today use Tajik for Iranian-speakers (mainly Persian). Not all Persian speakers in Afghanistan are called Tajiks by the way, for example the "Farsiwaan" use Farsiwaan historically. But they are Tajik=Persian. What is dangerous in my opinion is to use the term Tajik for Persians of Afghanistan/Tajikistan and use the term "Persian" for Persians of Iran only. We should not care about several dumb people here and there. There is a lot of articles in Iranica (see for example Safavids and Esmail I) which shows Tajik was used for Persians in Iran during these era. However, what happened is that the Persians of Iran (majority specially if you include related Iranic groups, it is 80%) did not have to accept imposed names and were not under foreign rule. So they used the term their ancestors used: "Iranian" and "Parsi". We need to make sure that everyone knows these two terms of Persian/Tajik are the same. However, this should be done in the Tajik and Persian people article. And I have changed the introduction of Persian people to reflect this fact as well. Now anywhere the term Persian is used, people that click on it will see that it refers not only to people in Iran, but also the two countries of Afghanistan and Tajikistan (as well as surrounding areas that has Persian speakers). Actually, at one time, Persians was much more spread and they lost territories in Iraq, Caucasus, Central Asia (Turkomanistan, Uzbekistan,...) etc. That is because as you noted, partly they were not united. The Persians of Bahrain by the way call themselves "Ajam". Ajam like Tajik though is a name that was used by outsiders and later was accepted by us. I think if we can work in the definition of the Tajik and Persian people article, and show the equivalence of these two terms(which is agreed by all scholars), then it is the best way to proceed. Neither does Hafez Shirazi solely belong to me nor does Avicenna solely belong to you. It is the heritage of the Persian civilization of Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan (and surrounding areas). See my latest edit in Persian people article. Note, I speak an Iranian language that is slightly varied from Persian but everywhere I go, I use the term Persian. Because Furs=Ajam=Tajik=Irani is all the same ethnic people(Iranian people), and we should not fall in the trap of divide and conquer. I understand your anger with regards to those Iranians who try to minimize the term Persian but the reaction should not be giving into the same argument of minimizing the word Persian. Rather we need to make sure accurate information is there in the Persian people and Tajik article. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Artacoana, there were conflicting claims about Ibn Sina's place of birth. I corrected that and moved the information about his parents from the lead to the life section as per our policy on leads outlined at WP:LEAD. Best regards. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. trueknowledge.com is not a WP:RS, it's an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other sources. I really don't see the point of "medieval Persian" and "(Tajik)" when it's not sourced, and the Persian people page makes it clear now that Persian also means Tajik, and Tajiks are Persians. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

trueknowledge.com is specialises in knowledge base and thus a valid source. I have valid sources for all of them. Please stop reverting. Furthermore, it's more accurate if medieval Persian and Tajik are included, as Persians are diverse.--Artacoana (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read WP:RS? A search engine is not a reliable source. And why are you calling my edit vandalism in your edit summary? trueknowledge.com is not a [[WP:RS]. Your aggressive behavior is very disappointing, specially given the fact that I have been trying to be accommodating to you all along. It's also a violation of WP:Civil to label another editor's edit as vandalism. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's vandalism. You removed both of my edits. I had History of Civilizations of Central Asia as reference for Bukharan origin of Avicenna, which is published by UNESCO.--Artacoana (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, look up what vandalism means on Wikipedia, before calling other editors vandals. I didn't touch "History of Civilizations of Central Asia", I simply removed trueknowledge.com which is not a [[WP:RS]. Let me state it for the record, that you're also one revert away from breaking WP:3RR. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Doost aziz, Hemayeh maa Paarsi/Tajik/Irani hastam. In Mafaahim baa ham hich Farghi Nadaarand. Just to point out Iranica/Encycloapedia of Islam state his "native language" as Persian. This is indirect reference but the word "native" means ethnicity. If you disagree ghowever, there are even much more specialized books than these Enycloapedias that use the term Persian for him (the book by goodman as an example). I believe, you have an important point with regards to the fact that some people mistake Persian for only Persians of Iran. But, this mistake is not a valid reason to change wikipedia articles against guidelines. The term Tajik means Persian and this is described in the Persian peoples article. So when clicks on this term in Wikipedia, it shows the right result. This is a better way to proceed, since the term Persian in Western literature is an encompassing term for all Persian speakers before even the rise of modern-nation states. Rather than fighting against all the scholarly books (which is an unwinnable fight and also those books are correct as they do not use Persian for citizen of modern Iran, but rather for ethnic Persians which includes Persians of Central Asia), it is better to expend our energy to make sure the term Persian is not monopolized by only people from Iran. If fix up the Persian people article as I have (and could use your help), this will actually be the bet tool against those folks to monopolize the term for only one modern country. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Ruud's insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region..--Artacoana (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam state his native language as Persian. If he was something else, then his native language would be something else. There is no reason to assume why Iranica/Encyclaopedia of Islam did something or did not do something. Also just because Iranica/Encycloapedia of Islam are not as explicit (in my opinion they are), it does not mean they contradict other sources which use Persian. Simply, Enycloapedia of Islam or Iranica might not list ethnicity for every known Persian and Arab figure. For example, Iranica does not list the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [1], but it doesn't contradict other sources which explicitly say he was Persian. Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering to its every Per your claim: "as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics ", I am not sure what official statistics you are using. But the fact is that term Persian should not be exclusive to Persians of Iran and this is not the case when people write history books. I think rather than fighting the term, we should make sure the term is not exclusive by ensuring it in its proper wikipedia article (Persian people). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) precept."[2]

Dorood Mr. Khodabandeh14 aziz, of course there is no explicit reference to the ethnicity of Avicenna in Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam. We should realise that the identity of people in the region in the medieval times was largely drawn from their territorial ties. They were called Balkhi (native of Balkh), Heravi (native of Herat), Sistani (native of Sistan), Juzjani (native of Juzjan), etc. The terms"ethnicity" and "race" are modern terms and appeared in the 18th and 19th century in Europe. Furthermore, there are many non-Persians in the region who have the native Persian language, but this doesn't make them ethnic Persian.--Artacoana (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Artacoana (are you from Herat?), sorry for the late reply. I also think that you are pushing too hard. Reference works like Iranica or Encycl. of Islam often do not mention the ethnicity of certain personalities. For example, the Encycl. of Islam does not mention the ethnicity of Islamic prophet Muhammad, but there is absolutely no doubt that he was an Arab. The same way, Iranica does not mention the ethnicity of Nizam al-Mulk, Ferdowsi or Ibn Sina. But that does not mean that their ethnic origin is not known. There is absolutely no doubt that they were Persians - by definition. Primary sources, such as Juzjani, need to be cited by experts (i.e. those who have read and commented on the original Arabic or Persian works). It is dangerous to quote them, unless there are specific statements or phrases. For example, the Farabi biographer Ibn Khallikan - cited by so many today - is in fact a very unreliable source. He claims crazy things like "Farabi did not know Arabic until he came to Baghadad, and then mastered to learn 70 languages". That is pure nonsense, and quoting that - even though from a de facto primary source - is wrong. The definition of the word Tajik is given in the Encycl. of Islam and is cited/quoted in the article Tajik. Unless we are dealing with modern personalities, the word "Persian" should be used instead of "Tajik". The differentiation between "Tajik" and "Persian" should only apply to modern history, specifically to Tajikistan vs. Iran (in case of Afghanistan, "Tajik" is kind of a misnomer, because - by definition - only the northeastern Persian-speakers are "Tajiks", while the great majority in Kabul, in the center, and in the west and the northwest are - by definition - "Farsiwan"). I hope I could help a little bit. Take care. Tajik (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Drood Tajik aziz, yes I'm a Farsiwan/Tajik from Herat. Don't you think that this way of thinking will be in favour of Iranians? Don't you know the common meaning of "Persian"? I believe it's unfair, per above reasoning. But if you, as my country fellow man believe so, I will accept it too. Sepās & Pāyanda bāshēd.--Artacoana (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Drood Doostaan-i Geraami. I am Irani/Farsiwan/Tajik/Parsi .. they are all the same. Artacoana Geraami I disagree with your notion of identity. Please see this article: "Such interpretations of Iranian identity seem to have been influenced by Eurocentric notions of national identity, drawn from Western civic-territorial experiences of nationhood and nationalism. Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit easily into this ethnocentric Western paradigm. The idea of nationhood in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion, whereas Western ideas of nationhood have been historically based on the specific boundaries, the development of legal-rational communities, and civic cultures"[3]. There is a clear differentiation between Parsi/Irani and Turk o Arab in Persian literature. Arab historian Al-Masudi also states: " Al-Masudi : "The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages."" . The problem as I said is to monopolize the term "Persian" by certain Iranians. Even Iranica has not paid enough attention to this. Believe me, I have had heated arguments with a couple of them who were trying to make fun of a person from Afghanistan who said he was Persian. Well I defeated them in that argument. The best way to deal with those misfits is too make sure the Persian peoples article and Tajik article state this fact. Also remember there is a lot of politics of divide and conquer behind this. Many academics and intellectuals have called for the official name of the language to be changed back to "Farsi" and not the Soviet invented term "Tajiki", but unfortunately due to pressure (possibly russian/pan-Turk) this has not occured. In actuality, if you think about it, minimizing the term Persian is occuring from several fronts: A) Some ignorant Iranians b) but also from the USSR, as well as anti-Persian groups in the region (whom you know what they are). We should not fall into their trap, rather we need to show what Persian has meant in history. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Khodabandeh14 aziz. Payandeh bashed.--Artacoana (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Artacoana jaan, as Khodabandeh said, don't fall into this trap. Hameh maa az yek naamo o neshan, be tafavot rang o zaban. Injoor dargirighaa faghat be naaf baazi borozgaan hast, nabayad tou dameshon oftaad. Masalan, didan ke maa darim dava o jaro bahs mikonim baa ham digeh, yeki hamin emrooz, vaseh mahi gereftan az aab gel alood vaa tahrik mahaa, rafteh yek ID "impostor" dorost kardeh, omadeh be Tajikan aziz tohin kardeh tou Persian people. [4] Be careful not get baited by these type of premeditated and calculated provocations coming from certain corners. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Daghighan, yek seri az inhaa aslan Irani nistan, khudesh rou Irani jaa mizanan, vaa hadafeshoon ijaad tafragheh hast bein melatha Irani-tabar mantagheh. Unfortunately, there are also some ignorant nationalist expat Iranians, who are hostile to Kurds, Afghans and others, and produce hostilities. Trust me, I have experienced this first hand, it's best to ignore these type of people who have identity crisis, and try to belittle their own brothers and sisters, to make up for it. The best way forward for all of us in the region, is to marginalize the extremists of all form and shape, religious or nationalist, by not feeding into their negativity, and becoming reactionaries ourselves. Harmony, peace, and cultural collaboration like this is the way forward. Biji kurden, tajikikan va hameh Irani-tabaran. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Khwaja Abdullah Ansari[edit]

I think we can definitely improve this article. I am sure as a native of Herat, you are proud of him. Some from the top of my head.. الهی مرا آن ده که مرا به ... این جوان جوانمرد باش، و اندر مردی فرد باش، و با دلی پرد درد باش

--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Very good idea. I'll cooperate once I'm done with my exams. Regards.--Artacoana (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


You could use the term Tajik in brackets directly after Persian. ...was of Persian (Tajik) origine... or ...was Afghan of Pashtun/Hazara/Tajik origine.... If we do that with the term Afghan than we can do it with the term Persian. It would just build more ties between Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan and the ordinery people would realise that the people of Afghanistan are not only Hazaras and Pashtuns who just speak Persian as first and second language. That would be better for everyone. It is correct, when Persian is used, because Tajik is a synonym for Persian. Hafez and Sadi were born in western Iran but used the word Tajik for themself. The Savafids used it for Iranian people, specially for the Persianspeaking population. In Tibet, the word Tajik still means Persian and is used for all Persianspeaker in Middle-East. In China, they use Hui as designation of all Persianspeakers of Middle-East. You see, there is nothing wrong with the term. We just need to make sure they were of eastern-Iranian Persian origine, at least from modern view, so you can use the Tajik in parentheses. That would be fine.--84.59.184.224 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Avicenna has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for mediation concerning Avicenna, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Nowruz[edit]

دوست گرامی نوروز شما فرخنده و پیروز باد. امیدوارم سال خوبی را در پیش داشته باشید. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

دوست گرامی از پیام پرمهر شما سپاسگزارم و بسیار پیام دلنشینی و تاًثیرگذاری بود. آرزوی من هم همینست. پروردگار بزرگوار نگهبان و نگهدار شما بادا. پیروز باشید --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you adding "Historiography" categories?[edit]

Greetings, I see you've been adding Category:Historiography of Afghanistan to articles about historical locations. Why are you doing this? Historiography is the study of how perceptions of history change over time, not of simply historical events/places. Please explain your reasoning, as I suspect this may be an incorrect use of the category. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry about this misunderstanding! I will undo my edits. --Artacoana (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries; for geographic areas that no longer exist, there is Category:Historical regions of Afghanistan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumi article and its template[edit]

If you are interested in this article, could you give your opinion as to whether the "Region" section should remain in the template? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan[edit]

First of all, why did you post that complaint by Mehrdad Izady, some Kurdish guy who is defaming and degrading Pashtuns with his nonsense opinion, and instigating ethnic conflict between Afghans. Instead of foreigners, you should bring forward Afghan politicians/representatives who feel that their ethnic group has been mistreated. Just as I have said that you're here to promote and advance Persians / downgrade Pashtuns.
You come here to distort Wikipedia's information because you're worried about a barbaric and false belief among some Pashtuns that consider themselves as the true owners of Afghanistan and see other ethnic groups as 'the immigrants'!? Wikipedia is not the place for such activities my friend and I think that's a violation here. All editors avoid such name calling, descrimination and bashing here, that stuff belong in unmonitered chat rooms or forums. I don't see a reason why the Pashtuns shouldn't call themselves the true owners of their land, and I think they're refering to the political system of the Afghan state because it is based on Pashtun power. Are you trying to challenge their authority? How is this totally unfair and wrong? The Pashtuns conquered the land which makes up Afghanistan in the mid 18th century after treaties were signed with local leaders, and all of this land belongs to them. At the same time all the citizens (including non-Pashtuns) have equal rights to move and live anywhere within the state. The policy of Abdur Rahman Khan was not only to send some Pashtuns to the north but it also included shifting Tajiks and others to the south, to the Pashtun areas. This was something nessary at the time when Russian Empire in the north was facing a threat from the British Empire in the south. That's how governments took care of things, and yes all governments around the world at that time were ruthless. The British were 10 times more ruthless than Abdur Rahman, and so were the Russians. Abdur-Rahman Khan targeted anti-state elements. That is how the government dealt with enemies of the state in those years (which were the Shias/Hazaras) and today Afghanistan is targeting the Taliban (Sunni/Pashtuns), which is often called the enemies of the state by Afghan officials. On the other hand, the Taliban also kill mostly Pashtuns. Your argument about Pashtuns descriminating non-Pashtuns is baseless and totally irrelevant to this discussion.
The origin of the Tajiks is unknown just like all the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, and they are not important than the others. They are the inhabitants north of the Hindu Kush, I have explained that south of these mountains is the native land of Pashtuns. You need to stop ignoring the Pashtuns and their history. Categorizing Avicenna, Biruni and Rumi's as Tajiks is wrong because these people never identified themselves as such. This is just speculations made by some editors in Wikipedia. If Avicenna (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā) and Biruni (Abū al-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī) were Tajiks then why did they have Arab names? Throughout the history Persians never liked Arabs or their culture, so what's going on here? Rumi's ethnic background is also vague like the others, some claim that he was Turkic while others mentioned him as Persian, and that could just be that he used the Persian language as is the case with many people. It's possible that he relate to modern day Uzbeks. We don't have a clear idea about these people's ethnicity other than just speculations or educated guesses.
Afghanistan is just like all other nations in the world, where their citizens can choose to live anywhere within the state. No body owns part of the land based on ethnicity, it belongs to the government and a piece of it can be purchased by any citizen. In all parts of the world, if someone becomes a traitor to their own country then they are punished according to the law of the state. You appear to be a nice person who is probably upset about the security situation in Afghanistan, and you're not alone because all Afghans are upset, including the NATO states. On the other hand, most Muslims around the world pray in a way that the war doesn't stop because ask for the Taliban victory. This is the real problem. So in this conclusion I'd like to say don't blame others when you are the problem, mainly because Afghans have no proper education and they always act out of anger. If the Taliban were educated they would've stopped fighting and rebuild their country instead of destroying it. Muhammad (pbuh) used non-violence and became successful, Ghandi, Bacha Khan, and many others followed his way and they all became successful.Ksmdr (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Your comments are so ridiculous that I initially didn't even bother to reply to them. Anyway, I had to transfer this discussion from the template into here, as apparently it's turning into a forum page. Here are my responses to your comments:
  • Pashtuns are not the only owners of Afghanistan. Pashtuns were never rulers in Afghanistan before the mid- eighteenth century. Only at that time, after serving as military auxiliaries to the Safavid and Afsharid empires in Iran, did the Durrani Pashtuns come to power by adopting the governmental structure and military organization of their former overlords. But Ahmad Shah's successors never created a real government, and Afghanistan became a failed state, this is specially true from the time of Shah Shuja and the rest of Barakzai dynasty. These rulers of Afghanistan found themselves in the parasitic state of becoming ever more dependent on the subsidies from the British raj, keeping the country as an isolated Buffer State. Pashtuns were always seen as an inferior culture, comparing to Persian (Tajik). Persian cultural dominance is a fact and you can still see it today. Since the early Islamic periods, it was the Tajiks (Persians of Khorasan) who made outstanding contributions to Islamic art, culture and theology. Great Islamic scholars, such as Abu Hanifa, Bukhari and Ghazzali were among the most famous scholars of Islamic studies. In addition, miniature, metallurgy, architecture and calligraphy began from Khorasan, by the Tajiks (classical Persians). That's why the Salafi doctrine was never successful in our country during the Taliban. And that's why the terrorist groups like al-Qaeda were refused by Tajiks, whereas al-Qaeda did influence the Pashtuns. Pashtun rulers have made several attempts to exclude Persian language from school books and administrations, but they failed. So long your culture is inferior to our people, you are seen as aliens and can not be the true owners of our country. Believe me, the name "Afghanistan" is just symbolic and you can never impose your identity on our people, not in thousands of years.
  • Your claim about the Arab or Turkic ethnic origin of Avicenna, Biruni and Rumi is more of a joke. You can find the Persian origin of these scholars in almost every classical and modern source, including biographies, encyclopaedias, etc. It became even more hilarious when you referred to their Arabic names. Then you should also believe that the Germans, the French, the British, etc who use Biblical names must be Hebrews! --Artacoana (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

An explanation[edit]

Perhaps you would care to explain why you reverted my edits on Avicenna and Rumi, since you wrote nothing in the edit summary on either article. Your statement on the Rumi talk page indicated you were against the "Region" section within the template then you simply removed all my references and replaced it with his place of birth(already mentioned in the template) and place of death(already in the template). You did the same type of editing on Avicenna(adding his pob and pod, which were already mentioned in the template). I will give you this opportunity to explain yourself before I report you for harassment. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still against adding region within the templates, however they are still there. So, I took more specific details about the regions they resided, including the ruling dynasties. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica. It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran). You are free to report me, my friend! I'm an old Wikipedia user, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--Artacoana (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse you? Steal what? Your statement(It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran).) clearly indicates you have a battleground mentality. This discussion is over. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wiki-Stalking, Battleground mentality and incivility. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Dear Artacoana, don't stress too much. We are starting to have a clearer genetic picture of Iran. The truth is that these rotten Elamites are not even Persians or Iranians (i.e.Aryans). They were just the ruled native people who started taking the identity of their Aryan rulers from Afghanistan after the Saffavid Empire. You should read more about the origin of Persians. They actually came from Herat, Aria, that's what Greek historians have said. These Elamites and Azeris have changed everything about our past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Avestan Geography[edit]

Some Persian dude has buggered up Avestan Geography beyond all recognition, using references over 100 years old. I don't know enough about the subject to fix it properly, but I see you did most of the work on the page, so maybe you want to have a look? Megalophias (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)