Jump to content

Talk:Tajiks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jamaas9 (talk | contribs)
Line 49: Line 49:


--[[User:Jamaas9|Jamaas9]] ([[User talk:Jamaas9|talk]]) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
--[[User:Jamaas9|Jamaas9]] ([[User talk:Jamaas9|talk]]) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

:Per cited sources, I think limiting a common name to a dialect (Persian => Dari) is wrong especially since it's not a modern identity and it existed since medieval era. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 05:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


== Edit warring by IP user ==
== Edit warring by IP user ==

Revision as of 05:51, 27 June 2018

Ghurid Tajik relationship

The article needs to follow WP:NPOV and if there is a dispute present both sides proportionately to the sources. Some are here.[1] and from Google Scholar, here. It seems disputed, so the article must show the dispute. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language template

@LouisAragon and Shxahxh: I don't think Shxahxh's edit is wrong.[2] Because in the section Name, it says the term "Tajik" was common in all Persian dialects from Persia/Iran to Central Asia. So what's the point of changing Persian to Dari?[3] --Wario-Man (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man: As you say, it "was" common. This is about a contemporary ethnic group, who speak a Persian dialect which is officially labeled as Dari in Afghanistan and as Tajiki in Tajikistan. The lang-prs and lang-tg templates are therefore the correct templates. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
& @Wario-Man, LouisAragon, and Shxahxh: I suggest we either revert back to Persian language as the term Dari language has clear negative political implications towards Tajiks. The term is forcibly used and enforced by the government -- this is almost akin to calling the Rohingya people "Bengalis" against their own will just because its what the Burmese's government promotes. Again, we are here to present objective information, not take part of any political sides. Due to the ongoing Afghan Civil War, and that the Afghan central government is formerly controlled by a non-Persian ethnic group, we should be as a careful as possible. Furthermore, if we are related to any of these countries or any country that colonized/attempted to colonize Tajiks -- we should doubly be mindful that we are not promoting a specific view, especially one associated with negative political connotations, respectfully.
So I suggest Persian language as this still used by the majority of articles related to Afghanistan and the Tajik people. I don't understand how simply the government's will trump their own people/scholars/news media regarding this topic. Personally, as a Tajik (roots originally from Kabulistan/Balkh/Samarkand), it's very frustrating to see that other ethnic Iranians (especially of Persian heritage) promoting the separation of the Persian culture and identity even while scholars/reporters are noting that this done against our will. Again, please be sensitive regarding the Afghan Civil War (along with coerced/forced Turkification of Tajiks in Uzbekistan) and how it impacts the native population in those countries as an English-speaking editor on Wikipedia. We're not here to promote any specific POV regarding an on-going war, and pushing forced terminology just because the government (which scholars have noted their past history of ethnocentrism) determined it as best is promoting a specific POV unless you have enough reliable sources that refute these statement by scholars and Tajiks in the media. We do not simply comply with the will of politicians in academia, at least not in the West. Let's keep that standard within Wikipedia as this is a US-based website. Dari vs Persian (Farsi) is an ongoing political issue -- not one that has been solved. There is a clear history of "Dari" being associated with several different forms of the Persian language by both Western and Eastern Iranians; however, this Afghan government is also promoting Pashto-derived words as "Dari" over the native Persian word. If you need an example, please look up the usage of "university" in modern Dari Persian vs Western Persian. Not long ago, a news reporter was fired for using the Persian word for the university while speaking in Persian instead of the Pashto-derived word, so this has real-life implications. So let's be neutral as Dari is still called "Farsi" predominantly by Tajiks of Afghanistan. It's also their native language/culture/history/heritage/etc especially in regards to New Persian.

@Wario-Man: if we have decided to revert back -- may you please do it if I can't? I occasionally mess up the codes and such, as I am still learning. Thanks and kind regard - B. Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: let's talk about this or it may be best to escalate this to someone who can decide. You can't ignore my entire point while promoting political biases. If Dari is the definite preferred and most objective term, then all the other pages need to edited as well. Your "source" is ultimately from a known ethnocentric government. We're not here to perpetuate their political agenda, and Persian is the best term in formal English (the English we have to use in the articles). You are directly promoting fascist policies with your perspective. We can be more neutral. -B Khurasani.

--Jamaas9 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per cited sources, I think limiting a common name to a dialect (Persian => Dari) is wrong especially since it's not a modern identity and it existed since medieval era. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by IP user

I have explained why I have removed that source.[4] Why do you restore it? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have added the quote from the original source.[5] country-data.com just copied/ripped its content from the original source.[6] Do not add it again. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic pejorative pronunciation necessary?

Hello, I want to assume good faith, so is there an encloypedic reason to use a pejorative anachronistic spelling of “Tajiks”. I haven’t noticed other articles utililizing historical colonial terms are may be deemed offensive due to historical, cultural, and political reasons? If there is modern scholarly usage by what is deemed trustworthy sources, may you please source this?

If not, I nominate to delete this addition to maintain true neutrality. -Barham Khurasani Jamaas9 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? I removed it. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. -Bahram Khurasani - -Jamaas9 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamaas9: There was no need to open a new section for that edit. When you encounter such edits and you think they're wrong, revert them. Just don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]