User talk:Tajik

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Wikipedia:Five pillars

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Regarding Pashtun population figures

Just to clarify where the figures are derived. The census in Pakistan says 15.42% which is multiplied by 165 mil. gives roughly 25.5. Then there, at least, 2.5 mil. Pashtun refugees and their descendents from Afghanistan. Add to this census problems as with counting women who are kept in seclusion as well. The 40-50 mil. is derived from Ethnologue so 35 mil. would be grossly an undercount. The minimum is 40 mil. Tombseye 04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue is an extremely uncertain source ... they have been criticized many many times! As for the number of refugees in Pakistan: the total number is something between 2-4 million, maybe 70% are ethnic Pashtuns ... so, the number is something around 3 million. The total number of Pashtuns in Afghanistan is unknown ... something between 10 and 13 million seems to be a good guess. The population of Pakistan is 162,419,946 (July 2005 est.), Pashtuns are ~15% (while the number of Pashto-speakers is ~8%!) [1]. So, 15% of 162.4m is less than 25m. 25m (Pakistan) + 2-3m (refugees from Afghanistan) + 10-13m (Afghahnistan) + 1m (rest) = 38-42million ... in any case, 50million is TOTALLY exeggerated!

Just a comparison: ethnic Persians in Iran are only 35-40 million. Even if you add ethnic Tajiks to that number, they are still less than 60 million. Considering the cultural and linguistic importance of Persian language and culture throughout history in the region, "50m+ Pashtuns" looks really unconvincing to me. Tajik 07:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the CIA you quote is wrong. The figures I quoted are from Pakistan's census. It's NOT a count of Pashtuns, but of Pashto speakers who are at 15.42%. Next, Ethnologue's 50 mil. may be too high, but it's definitely at 40+ according to the aggregate data. Also, the refugees have had children at any rate, but regardless, the Pashtuns who SPEAK Pashto do number 40 mil. according tothe data. Hope that clears things up. Tombseye 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, adjusted the Afghan Pashtun population to 12.5 mil. as a rough estimate of as per 42% out of 30 mil. people. Tombseye 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies regarding Khomeini's background

I actually misread Khomeini's origins. I recall reading about some family affiliation with India, but didn't realize that his grandfather was actually an Indian Muslim. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, he's still 3/4 Persian so I still believe he's great for the Persians page. Thanks. Tombseye 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the info. Honestly, I do not care about Khomeini :-) It's just because a biography of him that mentioned that he was neither Persian nor knew how to speak Persian. This is even attested in the book "Dar Posht-e Pardahaaye Enqelaab" ("behind the veils of revolution"), written by his personal bodyguard. There are sources claiming that he was an Indian from a Sikh background, which is rather a "conspiracy-theory" hoax. They see the proof in the similarities between Iran's post-revolution-flag and the traditional symbol of Sikhism: [2] Tajik 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Uzbek people page and Tamerlane

You make some valid points and I knew about Tamerlane's use of Chagatai, but actually most of the Uzbeks stem from Mongol peoples such as Tamerlane plus he was born there etc. I have no objections to replacing Tamerlane as such, but I think he can be claimed as an Uzbek given the overwhelming evidence that Uzbeks have a substantial amount (if not in the majority) of Mongol ancestry. The Uzbeks ethnically blur with Central Asian Tajiks and with Mongols. I realize though that the Mongol ancestry that is found in both populations doesn't seem to be very popular, although I imagine claiming descent from Tamerlane probably isn't quite as 'bad', the ethnic lines blurs with the two groups as Uzbeks show transition from Mongol types to Iranian types. By the way interesting stuff about Khomeini. I got a good laugh out of him being a Sikh! Tombseye 01:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I read about the wars between the Uzbeks and Timurids. I'm not really arguing the point as I was going to put a picture of Shaybani instead, but couldn't find one and since Mongols generally don't think of Tamerlane as their own I figured since he was born there and clearly the Mongols who lived there are now 'Uzbeks' it wouldn't matter. Ataturk is an entirely different case though as he was born a Turk who was, as far as we know, descended from a family of Turks who probably intermarried with local Balkan people over time. This is all subjective at any rate and I'm not really arguing that Tamerlane be kept, I was just saying why I put him up. Feel free to replace him. Preferably with Shaybani though. Ciao. Tombseye 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people page

I actually didn't put in those figures. I had input more conservative numbers based upon the Iranian census view that roughly 1/4 or less of Iranians are Azeris. The issue of the Safavids is a thorny one. The thing is that the Azeris, as we know, are not mostly of Turkic extraction (that is Central Asian) as genetic tests link them first to the Caucasus and second to Iranian peoples. Obviously, most Azeris became Turks due to acculturation. The Safavids do fall into this category and that was the reason to include Shah Ismail. Also, the Alevi relationship often united various 'Kurdish' groups such as the Zaza with emerging 'Turkic' groups like the Azeris that blurred the lines between them. This same phenomenon can be seen with successive generations of Saladin's descendents who lost more and more of their Kurdish identity. Mostly, I was applying the criteria of language and not 'race' as that's meaningless here. The Azeris are not Mongols and very little Central Asian ancestry as genetic tests have shown. Although, I think it'd be more accurate to say the Safavids were of mixed Kurdish-Azeri ancestry but again this comes back to the quandry of whether ethnic groups are defined by their languages and self-designation or not, especially when people intermingle to such a rate as to blur the lines. I'm not quite sure that this qualifies Shah Ismail's dismissal as he then can't be considered either Kurdish or Azeri. Of the two, given the Kurdish views that pertain to their language and people they claim as their own, Shah Ismail doesn't come up. Strangely enough, this seems to come up with from the Persian circles, who aren't Kurdish obviously but do claim affinity through their related Iranian languages. I can't help but think this is more about nationalism rather than accuracy as most reference books refer to Shah Ismail and the Safavids as a Turkic dynasty linked to the Azeris. However, if you have some of this research you are talking about that links Ismail to a definite Kurdish background, including no ancestry from the Azeris, then I'd be willing to go along with excluding him as an Azeri. Tombseye 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Hmm, interesting article and the discussion on the German page was interesting as well. Good thing I spent sieben jahre in Deutscheland. I'm not entirely convinced that Shah Ismail was Iranic as there appears to have been a process of Turkification of some Kurdish tribes who, in turn, seem to cluster genetically with Caucasus peoples more than other Iranian peoples (displaying again a language shift from some Caucasian language to an Iranian one just as the Albanians of Azerbaijan shifted to Azeri Turkish), BUT you make a good enough case that I wouldn't argue that Shah Ismail and the Safavids are one of those transitional situations that taking him down from the Azeri page won't be a travesty. Now who to replace Shah Ismail with that is an important Azeri historical figure and whose picture won't infringe any copyright problems? I'll see what I can find. Tombseye 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. You'll have to give me the info. and whatever links to information that specifically show that Ismail was never an Azeri and was merely the adopted son of an Azeri clan. I have mixed feelings on removing Ismail myself, and right now I haven't much time to do research of my own, but if you have something and want to let others in on it, come to the discussion page at the Azerbaijani people page and discuss your contentions. Thanks. Tombseye 06:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Ive seen your posts here and there.

Welcome!

Are you from Tajikistan?--Zereshk 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hello ... my family is from Afghanistan, but I am more German than Afghan ... aaahhhmmm ... Tajik ;)

-Tajik 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! We need to fix the Tajikistan page. It is almost empty. It has no pictures! I have some pictures of Tajikistan. But Im not sure if we can use them (because of the copyright properties). The same for Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a beautiful country. Images are worth a 1000 words! --Zereshk 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that regarding the debate on the Safavid page, I think I came across a passage in Dehkhoda Dictionary where Dehkhoda saya that Sheikh Safiddin himself actually wrote his works in Persian. Just thought youd wanna know, if you already didnt. Keep up the good work.--Zereshk 10:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Turkophiles still push forfard the "ancient" belief that the Safavids were Turks or Turkic-speaking. Modern historians - Iranian and Non-Iranian - consider them ethnic KURDS who were linguistically (and probably even ethnically) Persianized. Of course, the Safavids had also Turkish ancestors (like almost everyone in Iran), but it would be totally wrong to call them "Turks", "Azeri" or "Turkic-speaking". The Encyclopaedia Iranica confirms your information, that Safi al-Din Ardabili wrote almost exclusivly in Persian. -Tajik 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dehkhoda Dic. also confirms that, as you say, they were Kurdish in origin. But I also found the following info:

• Sheikh Safiddin was the 7th descendant of "Firuz-Shah" (who was not a Turk).
• Shah Ismail wrote most if not all his letters (i.e. official letters) to Selim in Persian.
• Shah Abbas' mother was from Mazandaran (though Im not sure of her ethnicity).

Zendeh bashi.--Zereshk 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Firuz Shah Zarrin-Kollah al-Kordi" ("Firuz Shah with the golden hat") was of Kurdish origin. That's attested in the "Silsilat al-nasab Safawiyah", the collected chronology of the Safawi grand-master family. Safi ud-Din Eshaq married the daughter of Sheikh Zahed ud-Din Gilani as-Sanjani (not to be confuzed with "Zanjan") who - as mentioned in his name - was from Khorasan (Sanjan was an ancient city near Merv and Herat). Their children were the grand-masters of the "Safawiyah" tariqa. Thus, the Safawids were of a Perso-Kurdish origin, later mixed with some Turkish influence (Ismail's grandfather was Uzun Hasan of the Aq Quyunlu) which was rather minor. -Tajik 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Award

Tajik is awarded this Barnstar for being one of the few Wikipedians who know what they're actually talking about. Latinus 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop

Nobody expects you to like Turks.However, stop posting lie and unfair informations about Turks.

spokesman of Miss -Inanna-

Vandalism and talk pages

Hi, if you feel that someone is misusing Wikipedia, e.g. by vandalizing articles, please use their talk pages to notify them. Without that, administrators are not willing to block users. You may also want to look here for some common messages you can post on a users' talk page. Thanks, RexNL 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule, which may even lead to a block. :-( RexNL 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to say that you are doing a good job in dealing with vandals, good luck! --Eupator 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are in the picture , obviously!

Tajik, go read the SAFAVIDS article's first few paragraphs and you find everything on SAFI Al-Din and his MURSHID Sheikh Zahed (Tadj Al-Din Al Kordi al Sanjani) or have a look on this website, where there is quite a bit about this history, I found it worthwhile perusing: http://www.zahedi.info . Good to have you around here!Pantherarosa 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do continue contributing. dast-e shoma dard nakoneh.--Zereshk 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

-Hello Tajik, I'm Afghan Historian, a wikipedian. I'm from Pakistan but I have a lot of Pashtun/Afghan ancestry so I'm technically of the same culture as you. My mother tongue, however, is Urdu. I was doing a lot of reading on Afghanistan and I would like to know something. Could Afghanistan be considered Iranian with small Indian influence or a meeting place of Indo-Aryan(Indian) and Iranian culture. I read that some South Asian based Hindu kingdoms and empires ruled here along with the dominant Iranian peoples. I would appreciate your help, as you are from Afghanistan and my ancestors left Afghanistan centuries and centuries ago. -User: Afghan Historian

Salam

Sorry for not being able to show my face around as requested.

As you can see, I am currently busy putting out yet another attack on Iranian pages. Some users are desperately trying to erase/merge the Iranian people article. Their claim is that the term "Iranian people" does not exist. (can you beleive that?)! I'm just waiting for their next ridiculous claim (..."Iran never existed! Erase their article!" ...."Persia was made up by Hollywood! Merge Persia with Hollywood!"...."Aryans were from South America!"...)

It would be great if you drop us a line of help there.--Zereshk 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Safavid Dynasty

Just wanted to congratulate you on the re-writing of the introductory paragraph - the current wording seems to cover all the facts accurately while being NPOV. Hopefully everyone can agree with the current form of the page.

Regards, An Siarach

Thank you. Congratulations to you as well. Tajik 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Persians

As you know the user Aucaman has been vandalizing Persian people, as well as several other Iran-related articles, claiming that "modern Persians are mix of Arabs and Mongols" editing the article, or adding a dispute tag, based on his own personal assumptions and conclusions without any valid source to support such outrageous revisionist theory. Please carry on the discussion on Talk:Persian_people, so we can reach a consensus for the removal of the "dispute tag".

Iranian Watchdog

Aucaman and a few others like Heja Helweda and Diyako have been repeatedly and systematically vandalizing the Iran-related topics such as Persian people and Iranian peoples, propagating false information, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting without one shred of proof to backup their wild claims, applying the strawman falsification approach, trying to establish new 'facts" based on their own personal assumptions and beliefs.

In order to prevent this situation, we need to create an Iranian Watchdog on Wikipedia and guard the integrity and quality of all the Wikipedia articles that are related to Iran and Iranians. Please let me know if you think that's a good idea. --ManiF 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tajik

Dorod bar to ey doost e gerami. Hey there, It's great to see some Tajik editors in wikipedia. All the best !. --Amir85 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Firstly, calm down and stop making accusations against me. I'm already sick and tired of all the Persian and Iranian-bashing that's been going on here on WP (see Talk:Persian people), so I really don't need a fellow Persian attacking me. Anyway, see Talk:Safavids/Archive1#Turkic_belonging_of_the_Safavids:_further_evidence._Pantherarosa.E2.80.99s_biased_POV_exposed for sources which clearly state that Safavids were "Turkic-speaking." Iranica doesn't say anything about their ethnic origins, and most sources don't either, except for one or two listed in the above link which state that Safavids were descended from nomadic Turkic tribes. FYI, Azeri/Turkic does not equal "Turkish" (people from Turkey). It is commonly accepted that Safavids were Azeri. But if you have sources, preferably more than just Iranica (which again, doesn't clarify the ethnic issue), which define the Safavids as ethnically non-Turkic, then we can create include both views in the Origins section and leave any mention of ethnic origins out of the intro paragraph. SouthernComfort 06:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you're going to continue attacking me and calling me a "Persian tool of Pan-Turkists" I'm not going to bother communicating with you. If you want some resolution to this dispute, stop the attacks and communicate like a human being. SouthernComfort 10:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

But other sources have been provided which contradict yours. The only solution is to include all the sources, since they are all academic, as far as I can tell. Also, you need to stop attacking the other editors as Pan-Turkists because believe me, if they were, they would not be willing to compromise and they are willing to communicate and reach consensus. Also, Grandmaster is involved there and he seems a very reasonable editor as well. SouthernComfort 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight buddy. That wasn't the version I edited. I made my edit after another revert war which again radically changed the intro paragraph. My preference is to remove all mention of ethnic or linguistic issues from the intro paragraph and move it to an appropriate section, since there is obviously controversy. SouthernComfort 10:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm strange? You're the one accusing me of Pan-Turkism - that's pretty bizarre. Anyway, I reintroduced "Azeri origin" in order to avert another revert war so that discussion could continue while I figure out a reasonable compromise that would please everyone. I think we're getting there, and I see no reason why Tabib or Grandmaster would object to my suggestion. SouthernComfort 11:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Tajik, please stop reverting on Safavids, you'll get blocked for violating the 3RR. Don't revert (or edit) that article for at least 24 hours. --Latinus 18:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Help

• Please know that you are being asked to look into the below pages; if you agree with our stance please do your part.
• Please go to the following links and quickly vote either ``Strongly delete``, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BKurdistan-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Kurdistan_stubs, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Kurdistan. Also, please go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako. ``I support`` the blocking of user Aucauman, Diyako, and Heja Helwelda, all three of whom are strongly political and doing sneaky vandalism to most of the articles relating to Iran, or Persia. This is [so] tiresome. Thanks Zmmz 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is very important that you please go to the following page and help me combat anti-Iranianism made by one particular user who is doing possible sneaky vandalism, yet certainly disruptiveness on most Persian related articles due to political and Zionist reasons, which have no place in an encyclopedia. The link that suports banning this user is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman, and also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. This would be appreciated. Zmmz 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Go here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genetic_origins_of_the_Kurds, and vote `strong delete` please, so a certain user would no longer be able to use some psuedoscience genetic test about `Kurds`, and constantly insert in the Iranian people article. We also need a lot of help on the Persian people, Iranian people, Persian Empire, and the Al Khwarizmi, Al Biruni article and discussion pages.Zmmz 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman. Endorse if you agree (and if you are interested in seeing the Iranian articles, particularly Persian people and Iranian peoples remain intact). SouthernComfort 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I thought you might be interested in this.Endorse if you agree with the case. --ManiF 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi Tajik. today by accident i looked at the article Safavids and shoked by the claimes in the article. I found that you are discussing the matter that safavids were Iranian or at least not originally Turkic-speaking. I agree with you but just wanted to ask you that "except Iranica" what are your other sources, maybe I can help by providing neutral and credible sources regarding the issue of Safavids Iranian background. Diyako Talk + 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources are the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" [3] and the "Encyclopaedia of Islam", the two most authoritive and most important sources regarding Iranian and Islamic history. Both sources say: Safavids were ethnic Irans and the ones who RE-ESTABLISHED the Persian identity in Iran after centuries of Turkic and Mongol rule. Tajik 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. There are many sources regarding their Iranian origin, but it takes a little time to provide all of them. I'll do my best [4].

Diyako Talk + 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts institute of technology

Diyako Talk + 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More sources:

[5], [6], [7].

Diyako Talk + 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Wikipedians' Notice Board (WatchDog)

Please bookmark this page, for daily updates on the status of the Iran-related articles. Read notices posted by others or add your own notice by updating "Urgent view". --ManiF 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Ok, I'll have a word with them and see if we can come to a compromise. --Khoikhoi 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik. To be quite honest, I really don't think anyone is going to convince anyone of their origins. It doesn't matter anymore. What matters is how we can come up with a compromise for an edit war that has been going on since early January.

I think the current version is good, but we need to expand the origins section. We can then add sources for all the information there supporting both sides. --Khoikhoi 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just don't think this edit war will ever end if just ignore the other side of the argument. Trust me, the only way edit wars end are by compromises. --Khoikhoi 23:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We also have sources that clearly state that they were Turkic-speaking. It seems to me that you are not willing to compromise. --Khoikhoi 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You know Iran was called Persia then, right? --Kash 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Iran it has always been called IRAN. But in other countries and in English it was known as Persia until the request of Reza Pahlavi in 1920s or so. If we are not to use the name that it was called back then by others then maybe we should consider a rewrite of Persian empire! --Kash 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed this:

In 1959, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, before his removal from power by his own people on the charge of being too heavily influenced by foreigners, announced that both Persia and Iran can be used interchangeably. on Persian empire. Lol I don't know about you, but to me I think he probably announced that because of his personal nationalist ideas instead of 'being too heavily influenced by foreigners' which is probably just POV a pro-khomeini.. what do you think? --Kash 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yes the original Hakhamanesh was created by Persians, but since then there have been many other empires and rulers from other ethnics. Now, all of them are called Persian Empire but thats in English. In Iran, they are not called Emperatooriyane Parsi!, did we miss something ;)? --Kash 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Safavids

Tajik, your last edit is not overly helpful, as the phrasing now implies that they were INITIALLY turkic speaking and INITIALLY Iranian (INITIALLY IRANIAN??) It is also downright silly to assert that ethnicity is based on the language someone speaks! In that case the entire COMMONWEALTH of NATIONS could be stamped ANGLE SAXON, from London all the way to New Zealand. While iranian is the universally applicable attribute (Kurdish origin was claimed by the Sufi sheikhs themselves in the Saffat-ol-Safa!), the languages spoken by the first SHAH, Esmail/Ismail the First were surely Turkic and Persian. Turkic, because his MOTHER was the daughter of the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlou tribe leader, UZUN HASSAN, who certainly spoke TURKIC. Read more in the Safavids TALK page about it. While there was zero political Turkic Nationhood in Azerbayjan of those days, some present Azeri nationals, in an often infantile manner seek to carve out selfcongratulary roots for themselves and their NEW Azerbayjani State, forgetting that their Turkic roots come from as far away as present day Mongolia from the Uigurs, who migrated all the way to Konstantinople from their longstanding, transitory West Chinese homeland (in Xinkiang Province) Pantherarosa 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

safavi

Hi

I was just wondering what do you think of this:

The Safavids were an Iranian dynasty of Azerbaijani origin that ruled from 1501 to 1736,

As intro for the safavi article? this version can put an end to the dispute and I think it is better than Turkic speaking specially in the intro. What do you think?

thanks

Gol 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no good idea, because "Azerbaijani origin" is wrong. Haydar Safavi, Shah Ismail's father, was a Kurd from Anatolia who had moved to Azerbaijan. Therefore, "Azerbaijani origin" is wrong! The Seljuq kings were all born in Iranian lands, but noone would ever call them "of Iranian origin" - although they were from Iran and they were Persian-speaking. The Seljuqs are still considered "Turks", because one of their forefathers some centuries ago was a Turk. The same goes to the Safavids: their ancestors were Iranian and Iranian-speaking, and they themelvs never opposed Persian or Persian elements in their dynasty. Calling the Safavids "of Azerbaijani (=Turkish) origin" is deffinitly wrong. Tajik 12:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year

Have you seen Newroz? Diyako has changed the page "Newroz" from being a redirect of Norooz to a new article of its own. I'm not sure what to do about this. --ManiF 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to change it to "Nouruz" or "Nowruz", becazse "Newroz" sounds REALLY strange! And of course, Happy New Year to you as well :) Tajik 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Now I got it ... it's about the Turkish celebration *lol* Tajik 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

Nevruz is not very similar to the Irnian festival of Norouz it is Norouz!

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks

You may wish to assist in finding sources for the Tajiks article. Aucaman is attempting to contest the use of "Aryan" in Iranian and Iranian peoples' articles and going so far as to remove the term entirely. SouthernComfort 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Can I please have your e-mail address? Thanks. --ManiF 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please send me an e-mail to manif@hotmail.com, I need to discuss something with you. Cheers. --ManiF 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Schau mal auf Safi Al-Din

Sieh Dir die Talk Seite an! Wir haben es mit geistig minderbemittelten Psychopathen zu tun! Ich habe keine Musse mehr mich mit so einem IGNORANTEN DRECK auseinanderzusetzen! Du bist jung und rüstig! Tu Dein Bestes!Pantherarosa 13:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please change your vote as regards the issue of moving Safavids to Safavid dynasty - all the other dynastic articles of Iran adhere to this naming convention. SouthernComfort 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to Talk

Can you please discuss these points on the talk pages, because I may not always be here to discuss them. Now,

• Kabul is now the capital of Afghanistan, and that is what I believe is implied, Obvioulsy it was not the capital when the invasion took place.
  • We are talking about Kabul too, which is the capital of Afghanistan. - Irishpunktom\^talk

• Timur was a Turk, and this harps back to previous discussions - He was of the Barlos tribe. This tribe, like many others boasted a Mongol name and ancestry but for all practical purposes it was Turkic. Turki was Timurs' mother tongue, altough he may have known some Persian from the Cultural milieu in which he lived; he almost certainly knew no Mongolian, though Mongol terminology had not quite disappeared from administrative documents and coins.
  • "All of Timurs descendents native Persian-speakers". What is your point here? Timurs empire extended into persia. Persian was one of their languages, they also spoke in a Turkic dialect, are you suggesting they were mono-linguist?- Irishpunktom\^talk

• Babur's biography is a primary source, and one of few we have. Babur is a Turco-Mongol, as stated. His Turk origins being far more than his Mongol.
  • I never claimed the entire dynasty, the Moughal empire was Turkish. Don't put quotes around words I have not said - It is dishonest. Your claim that "There is not a single official document of the Mughal era written in Turkish" is very very false. Firstly, you are right, there will be no document written in the Turkish language, because the Turkish language is but one of many Turkic languages. If you re contending that no turkic language was ever used in Baburs court, you are wrong and I would suggest you do well by reading "A history of India as told by its historians"--Irishpunktom\^talk

• The Encyclopaedia Iranica is the antithesis of Wikipedia - It is explicitly POV, writing on Iranian history from an Iranian POV. We need to be neutral here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Encyclopaedia Iranica "focuses on the land, life, culture and history of all Iranian peoples and their interaction with other societies."[8], and thus, as I have said, is the opposite of NPOV. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tajik - I would like to send you a copy of the Baburnama. Timur considered himself a Turk and a Mongol (or, a turco-Mongol). He, like Babur, spoke Turki. Here are some sources: [9][10][11][12]. The Encyclopaedia Iranica speaks from an Iranian POV, not a neutral one. Thus, while it is a good guide, its overview can not be NPOV. Its not designed that way. That does not make it bad, the encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, has always been based in ethno-centrism, it does not make it neutral, and it is cases like this where it can be seen to fall down. Further, the EI and the EIr are not immune from being incorrect. I can give you the name of at least twenty books which cite both Babur and Timur as being Turco-Mongol. Books published by authorative academic publishers, such as Princeton and Oxford. The EIr will overstate Persian attributes, because it is desgined, essentially, to take into account Iranian history and geography to much more of an extent that that of other peoples and cultures. Thats just the way it is. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Self Revert

Greetings, please self-revert your last edit on Mughal Empire as you are currently in violation of WP:3RR on it and if you do not you will likely be subject to blocking. Netscott 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From previous experience I can tell you that Irishpunktom likes to file 3RR violation reports and most likely won't hesitate to file one against you... that would be unfortunate because you've never been blocked. Please know that from previous experience in dealing with Irishpunktom's typically heavy POV edits I'm inclined to trust your edits more. Netscott 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, please do your best to not enter into revert wars. From my own tendency to revert back and forth I've been advised to employ WP:DR when encountering such difficulties so I'd advise the same to you. You seem knowledgeable in your edits. You might want to check on some of the articles that Irishpunktom's been working on and see if some of them could use some assistance on your part. Thanks! Netscott 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I've reverted Irishpunktom's "dubious" information out of the article you may want to contact an admin about it. Irishpunktom doesn't tend to give up entering his POVerted edits easily. Netscott 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of seeing you blocked - we are in the middle of some excellent discussions on the Babur page.. what good would blocking you have on these discussions. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your remarks on Babur - amazing what can be achieved through debate rather than mindless reverting! I think you'll find that the term Tajik has a long pre-Russian pedigree (it appears in the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi amongst other places) but its meaning has changed over time, so we can leave that for another day. I'm quite happy with Babur as it stands.Sikandarji 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim World

Sorry to bother you again but I'm just curious, off hand do you see anything wrong with Irishpunktom's removal of this info on Muslim World? Netscott 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You will find that the information I removed glorified the Ottoman Turks as being the spreaders of Islam ("The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire".) Whis is obvioulsy wrong, but Netscott, for some reason, wants it in.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Ottomans were the ones who brought Islam to Europe. Yet, they were not responsible for the spread of Islam in the rest of the so-called "Islamic world" Tajik 09:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends of what Europe you talk about - The ottomans did not, for example, bring Islam to Spain, where the caliphate of Cordoba was situated. The largest European Muslim population today is in France, brought via French imperialism and immigration from former colonies. The Ottomans took Constantinople and spread Islam to the Balkans, but Islam is not a Balkans base religion, so the idea that "Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire" is so very very wrong. I still don't understand why Netscott wants it in.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest my view is fairly neutral on the information. I'm just really against mass removal of information seemingly done in bad faith with little to no explanation. User:Bhadani independently had the same concerns if one looks at the history of the article. The editing on Babur and Mughal Empire reminded me of that previous Muslim World case and admittedly not being in an authoritative position on the subject matter of Muslim World it seemed sensible to ask the opinion of an editor who does strike me as someone who would be knowledgeable. Netscott 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Talk page there you know! --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Humayun

Greetings. I have made a series of contributions to the Humayun article, and was hoping you could take a look and make any fixes or additions you may feel are needed. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Right now, I am quite busy ... I'll have a look at it when I have some more time. Tajik 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Thought you might be interested in this info I stumbled across yesterday:

"The Safavid dynasty of Persia itself was also a hybrid of Kurdish and Turcomen bloodlines, with the root being fully and completely Kurdish. On another occasion, a hybrid of Kurd and Lur elements ruled Persia under the Zand dynasty, 1750-1794." Lawrence G. Potter, Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004. Macmillan. ISBN 1403964505, p.75

Take it easy.--Zereshk 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful information. That's what we've been saying from the beginning on. Since the background of the dynasty is usually defined by the male linage of the family, the Safavids were Kurds (the Turcoman linage was that of Shah Ismail's mother, who was hal-Turcoman and half-Greek) and the Zands were Lurs. Tajik 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

I noticed that you helped with reverting the article. Is it just me or is the article not clear on the definition of Iranian peoples?! Thanks for the help. Tombseye 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are those you are talking about, however they are not really iranian, those mullahs have been as much mixed with the arabs as the pashtuns. --Darkred 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timurid Empire neutrality

Can you please explain what part of this article is not neutral? I can't see any opinions in there although I may have misunderstood. --Tombom23 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is one-sided and panturkic POV. The Timurids were not Turkic, but a Mongol dynasty (out of the Mongol Berlas clan). Timur even claimed to be descendant of Djingiz Khan, and he married inti Djingiz Khan's family. (Just take a look at the article Timur).

Although Timur's mother tongue was Chaghatai Turkic, the dynasty itself was culturally Persian and not Turkic. Timur's son Shahrukh - being born to a Persian mother - moved his capital from Turkistan to Persian Herat, "Persianized" the state, appointed Persian administrators and Wezirs, and funded and supported Persian arts and language.

This article contradicts other major (and authoritive) sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Even a comparison to the German Wikipedia exposes the major fraud of this article. Besides that, there is already an article about the Timurids --> Timurids.

Tajik 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash

Yeah, but this very far-fetched claim, for whoever making it. With Hurramids and even earlier Mazdakism. Sounds strenous. Certainly they did not consider themselves as such, I can assure you of this abdulnr 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'll check out the Kizilbash article as I know a little about them and I believe I've encountered a few in my travels. At any rate, I'll do what I can as I am always happy to help. Tombseye 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[13] made on May 5 2006 (UTC) to Kizilbash====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Zoroastrian mythology

should it be merged with persian mythology? User:Fullstop got rid of it without any notification

History of Tajikistan

I am doing something on Turkmen History and noticed that History of Tajikistan is not very weill organized artice. Maybe you will be interested in working on it? abdulnr 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Qizilbash

The Qizilbash were Alevi Turkish military order that was vanguard of Shia armies. They were mostly Turks from modern Azerbaijan region of Iran and sothern Turkey. In Turkey, Alevi shia sect is also referred to as Kizilbash. Siddiqui 12:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In Turkey, people belonging to Alevi sect are also refereed to as Qizilbash by the Turks.

Siddiqui 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many people with Qizilbash as their family name in Pakistan. It is not associated with Shia though most of them could be Shia. Former President of Pakistan Yahya Khan, Former finance minister Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash, singer Mahjabeen Qizilbash, musician Asad Qizilbash, etc. There are too many to mention.

Siddiqui 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Iranian peoples

Hello Tajik. Thanks, I'll put in that when I get the chance. May go well at the beginning portion of the article. I see Qizilbash is slowly taking shape. So far so good. Tombseye 16:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems on Pashtuns page

Greetings. There are some problems on the Pashtuns page as some new users want to rename the page 'Pathans' with the intent to claim that the Pashtuns are subgroup of Pathans! I have no idea what they're talking about, but since I recall you saying you're from Afghanistan can put in your two cents? Thanks. Tombseye 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the following articles

I am an Azari and a member of that groups project page do to my difference of opinion user:Grandmaster and Baku want to force me out and they delete my user box, but more importantly is our disputes on the articles. User:Grandmaster even deletes my contributions and arguments on the talk page as he has done with other sin the past. Look at Azari/Azeri people please including this articles talk page, the Music of Azarbaijan, including Talk:Music of Azarbaijan, Talk:Iranian Azarbaijan, and the Azeri Wikiproject page and its discussion, including my own talk page. What user:Grandmaster is pushing is unfair and how he monopolizes the articles. He puts citations next to my edits and deletes them if citations are not found, but the citations asked for that have been next to his ssertions that Azaris are Turkic have never been filled. 72.57.230.179

Additionally look at what I reported to the editors;

[[14]]

Thanks 72.57.230.179

In regards to this edit

Perhaps you could leave a note on Talk:Iranian languages about what exactly is inaccurate about it, so it can be corrected. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dorood bar shomaa

Dorood. BTW if you speak Russian let me know. --Ali doostzadeh 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic

Please keep an eye on Azari and the talk:Azari. I have started the following in the discussion.

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge. 72.57.230.179

Sart

روز بخير

I've added another comment on the Talk:Babur page (let's keep this good-natured, shall we) but I have no quarrel with your deletions. I was wondering if you could look at some of the changes I've made to Sart and tell me what you think.

خودا حافظ

اسکندر

Sikandarji 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ghorids and Ghurids

I have created disambugation page Ghauri and wanted to add the link to the merged page of Ghorids and Ghurids. You can merge these pages or we can work together merge this page. Siddiqui 02:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to your question here

help?

Any help you could give to Hujum would be appreciated? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik alphabet

Hi, could you take a look at Tajik alphabet please and either be bold, or make suggestions on the talk page. I could do with someone who actually knows the language to make sure I'm not making any mistakes :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Navoi

Hi Tajik,

He seems to have stopped. I reccommend you start a thread on the talk page about it. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye out, too, Tajik. I don't know enough about Babur to be able to do much there, but I've definitely got my eye on Fuzûlî (since I rewrote that page from scratch to get it into the form it's in now, it's a bit like one of my precious babies), and also on Alisher Navoi. —Saposcat 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kilwa Empire

Hi, someeone created an article on the Kilwa Empire, which is apparently linked to the Bazrangids. As this new article seems to be based on the same sources as the original Bazrangids article, and you apparently found quite a few inaccuracies in that one, could you please check the new article too? I'm a bit suspicious about the quality of that source, but I lack expertise to check myself. Thanks --Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hey Tajik,

I reverted his rampage through the articles, and if he continues I'll bring something up about it at WP:AN/I. Khodafez. —Khoikhoi 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)