Jump to content

Talk:Persians: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Persian people/Archive 8) (bot
Jamaas9 (talk | contribs)
→‎Linking to page on Tajik people: Added a talking point and a suggested next step to help improve this page. Furthermore, reminded everyone to be respectful during these discussions.
Line 153: Line 153:


[[User:EdenKZD|EdenKZD]] ([[User talk:EdenKZD|talk]]) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
[[User:EdenKZD|EdenKZD]] ([[User talk:EdenKZD|talk]]) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

:: {{ping|EdenKZD}} I think that is a good idea. For starters, we can also just change the lede to state what is already accepted and accounted for in [[Iranian studies]]:
″ ...most influential Persian figures were native from outside Iran's present-day borders to the northeast in Central Asia and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent to the northwest in the Caucasus proper."

That way, the lede is neither misleading and it is a quite easy fix regarding all the historical figures the Tajik people, the modern Iranian Persian, and modern Tat people share. Again, outside of Richard Frye's work, which is a bit anachronistic in regards to ethnic studies (scholars interpretation of formerly colonized lands changes a lot quite quickly for a variety of reasons), there is no way to say that all these famous historical Persians originated from the population that lives in present-day Iran. We have no known historical record that indicates a large migration even though some editors here promote that, and many of these famous historical scholars make indications that they are effectively just Persianized local Iranians. This is rather clear if you understand/comprehend Persian sources, but the average reader would presumably not be able to do that if they are using WP as a reference/learning tool. If no editors have qualms about what we are requesting to change, we will go ahead and change it as every day that this page remains so nationalized -- the further the credibility of the WP degrades.

Furthermore, lack of clarity has real-life implications for say...Afghan residents in Iran (who have a history of documented abuse) and how Tajik-Persians-Tats interact within the diaspora. Unfortunately, many of the stereotypes that were discussed in this talk page and historical talk page do happen in real life -- ie: 1. "We know that Persians lived in present-day Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Uzbekistan at ONE POINT, but they NO LONGER LIVE THERE." -- this implies modern Tajiks are not descendants of the historical Persians from that region, which is false. 2. "Tajiks are analogous to Hazaras" -- this is both completely racist to both ethnic groups for a variety of different reasons and disregards their entire history. This point was repeatedly made, and frankly, if one needs to ask such question multiple times...perhaps one does not have the required knowledge to be in a discussion regarding Tajiks vs Persians. If you accept editing pages on WP, you must have at least working knowledge on the topic otherwise it may be a burden for current and future editors to fix unnecessary mistakes. Editing WP is not meant as a way to gain basic knowledge regarding a group. Of course, one will learn as an editor and that is part of the group-process and education in general, but we all should have some level of competency so we may positively contribute to this project. 3. "XYZ Famous Persian-speaking Iranian belongs primarily and predominantly to Iranian Persians..." -- again, that's an attitude that is due to a nationalized mindset. I assure that there are plenty of Tajiks/Tats/ethnic Iranians that think the opposite regarding the most famous Iranian/Tajiks such as [[Rumi]] with just cause. Some of them are presumably their genetic ancestor. Furthermore, I have been told that Iran's primacy to our shared history is due to Iran being called Iran...as in the only modern successor to all the famous Iranian/Persian dynasties. As a reminder...Tajikistan is literally Persian for "Land of Iranians" or "Land of Persians" depending on how you want to translate the Persian word "Tajik".

WP is not here to endorse any side in particular, and editors have to remain neutral, polite, and respectful. Furthermore, please refrain from name-calling -- if this type of abusive behavior continues, especially to self-identified Tajiks/Tats or other ethnic Iranians trying to improve our shared heritage -- I will escalate this. Given that I have discovered even more similar issues regarding our related pages, I do not appreciate that type of behavior as it weakens the "Good faith" clause we abide by. Please be more respectful, and know your place -- this includes me, of course too. When that happens, an apology is probably a good idea. Appreciate everyone who read this, and looks forward to working with you so that WP will be an excellent resource in all things related to Persians and Iranians. Thanks and kind regards. - Bahram Khurasani

--[[User:Jamaas9|Jamaas9]] ([[User talk:Jamaas9|talk]]) 04:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:00, 28 June 2018

Template:Find sources notice

Update discussion

@Rye-96, Wario-Man, LouisAragon, ZxxZxxZ, Kouhi, Tiptoethrutheminefield, and 77.98.4.100: Hi all, I've made a few changes to the article hoping to address the many issues we've been discussing for the past several months now. Let's please continue the discussion here of any improvements or issues that anyone has with the article from the past and from the recent changes I just made, as well as anything else that still hasn't been addressed and needs to be taken care of.

Thanks in advance! —570ad (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note: I think the lede could definitely benefit from a revision. As @ZxxZxxZ: pointed out, things like long listing of specific fields of arts don't need to be listed out individually as they were before their removal; it could also be expanded to include other areas, since Persians contributed to many more fields in addition to the arts. —570ad (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, 570ad. First and foremost, you need to come up with some valid references which can back up your statements. You cannot drop those unsourced and self-formulated material in front of the existing citations and get away with it.
As the "native to X" part was criticized about, and since it lacked any source, it must've been removed.
The idea of considering Tajiks equal to the modern-day Persian ethnic group is still lacking any accurate source; an yet there is a clear distinction between the two groups, as defined through modern-day sources and statistics.
The historical usage of the words Tajik and Persian, however, are definitely relevant to this article, and need to be included.
Rye-96 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png

Thanks for the comment Rye-96. If we look at this map of the ethnic distribution of Iran, where do any sources state that the Persian ethnic group abruptly discontinues at the border to the east of the country? Historically, there was no such border for many centuries in this area, this is the logic behind the trans-national character of the Persian people, and why stating in the article that they are uniquely in modern-day Iran is completely flawed and inaccurate. The burden of citing ethnic studies showing that indeed there is a sudden halt to the Persian people right at this modern eastern Iranian border also falls on your shoulders for promoting this notion, which I argue is lacking any credible sources, thus, shouldn't be pushed forward as a hard-fact in the article.

Are the people in each of the three Persian countries distinct from one another? Of course–there is no argument there. But, so are the people within each country. The eastern Iranian Persians in Mashhad are not the exact same as the western Iranians of Tehran, for instance, and it is a known fact that Mashhadis share closer historical ties with the people of Herat to the east than they do with their western counterparts. It is modern-day borders that separated a once united people, which is what the article needs to address. The current state is far too restrictive in its dealing with Persian identity. Although it has improved, I admit, but much still needs to be done. —570ad (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye-96. An alternative lede can be the following. If you refer to the German and Austrian article, they have a similar problem and have adopted this approach. With the following, we establish that 1) Persians in Iran and Afghanistan/Tajikistan are now classified differently but 2) historically they were the same people.

The Persians are an Iranian ethnic group native to Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. They share a common cultural system and are native speakers of the Persian language, as well as closely related languages.

The ancient Persians were originally a nomadic branch of the ancient Iranian population who entered modern-day Iran by the early 10th century BC. Together with their compatriot allies, they established and ruled some of the world's most powerful empires, well-recognized for their massive cultural, political and social influence covering much of the territory and population of the ancient world.

Throughout history, the Persians have contributed greatly to various forms of art. They own one of the world's prominent literary traditions, and have also left influences in architectural and scientific concepts.

Today, people of Persian heritage living outside of Iran in Afghanistan and Tajikistan are referred to as "Tajiks" and may or may not also self-identify as ethnically Persian—however, it is to be noted that the terms Tajik and Persian were historically synonyms and used interchangeably. 77.98.4.100 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@570ad: The remark regarding the "eastern Iranian Persians in Mashhad" is correct. If not reverted already, there is currently a brief mention to the fact that the variety of Persian spoken in Khorasan is close to the one spoken by the Aimaq. And it could be expanded if needed.
What we need is accurate and relevant information extracted from some reliable sources, rather than some unsourced or first-hand material which definitely leads to numerous edit wars.
@77.98.4.100: There's nothing to discuss and decide about as long as the primary issue with these statements is that they lack sources.
Rye-96 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rye-96: this article is not just about Persians in the modern day, but Persians historically. Tajiks were historically known as Persians. Sources have been provided. This fact is pretty important. It should be mentioned in the lede, not a footnote hidden away in the article. I suggest putting in the lede: "Today, people of Persian heritage living outside of Iran in Afghanistan and Tajikistan are referred to as Tajiks; however, it is to be noted that the terms Tajik and Persian were historically synonyms and used interchangeably." 77.98.4.100 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye-96: I've made a few updates based on this discussion, please check them when you get a chance. I think it is moving in the right general direction. As for the note on Mashhadis, I did not see it in there. When I have more time, I will try to go though past edits and see if it can be found in there and resurrected. I've also put back the line from Ibn Battuta, which was removed recently. This is a relevant piece of information that goes along with the usage history narrative in that section. —570ad (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that says that the Persian-speakers (incl. Hazaras) of the nations called Afghanistan and Tajikistan are "Persians?" - LouisAragon (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the historic usage of Persian and Tajik looks fine. I've got some more material to add to that. Also, don't forget that Khorasan included major parts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one, since the Persians of Khorasan are much alike some Persians of Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The Persian-speakers of Herat, for example, are more to close to Khorasani Persians than the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan. Historically 'Tajik' used to be a synonym with 'Persian', and many prominent Persians called themselves Tajks, especially during the medieval period and apparently even under the Safavids. However it is a different thing in this day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ethnicities and religions in Iran.png
@LouisAragon: As mentioned earlier, this article is not exclusively about modern-day Persians living in today's Iran. Once again, please refer to the point I brought up above about the ethnic map of Iran (reposting here). Replying with a question is not an answer, as you did. Does it make any logical sense to you that Persians abruptly stop existing at this eastern border? Why is it so hard to accept that Persians do indeed make up the bulk of the Persian element of Central Asia given that they have been in the region for centuries? The history of Persians itself tells us about their movements and where they settled, their conquests, etc. It was these Khorasani Persians (yes, in today's Afghanistan/Central Asia) that spread Persian culture to South Asia into India, giving rise to the Moghul dynasties and their achievements (Taj Mahal, etc.) and these Khorasani Persians of Central Asia are responsible for the huge presence of Persian vocabulary in Hindi and Urdu that have retained their eastern (Dari) pronunciation because of being brought there from Khorasan. What sources say anything contrary to the history? I think you are confusing the Indian subcontinent's Persian history with that of Central Asia's; true, the Persians in India integrated wholly into the general stratum of Indian population throughout centuries, whereas the Persians of Central Asia (particularly in Afghanistan and Tajikistan) have retained their Persian identity. You seem to think this people merely adopted the Persian culture, but the truth is, they have been active contributors to Persian identity, as proven by the countless historical Persians that were born there.
I have not brought up Hazaras once the entire several months of this discussion–yet you keep mentioning them as if the entire argument is about them, when it's not. And your edit note, "797 times," lol, please chill. —570ad (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what 570ad and HistoryofIran said: The inhabitants of Herat, stretching to ancient Bactria (Balkh) on the east, were an extension of the population of the present-day Iranian provinces of Khurasan, and from the time of the Achaemenid empire these 'upper provinces' had a unity, probably ethnic as well as cultural (pg. 35, The History of Ancient Iran, Richard N. Frye). 77.98.4.100 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was no such thing as a Persian population in Khorasan under the Achaemenids, if that's what you mean. The region was still populated by Eastern Iranians back then. I honestly doubt that the Persians even were a majority in Pars/Fars at that time, not by a large margin at least. It was after the Arab conquests the Persianization of the Iranian population started, and it seems to have been pretty much completed under Samanids, per [1], which I wrote in the Samanid Empire article;
Under the Samanid Empire, the Zarafshan valley, Kashka Darya and Usrushana were populated by Sogdians; Tukharistan by the Bactrians; Khwarezm by the Khwarazmians; the Ferghana valley by the Ferghanans; southern Khorasan by Khorasanians; and the Pamir mountains and its surroundings by the Saka and other early Iranian peoples. All these groups were of Iranian ethnicity and spoke dialects of Middle Iranian and New Persian. In the words of Negmatov, "they were the basis for the emergence and gradual consolidation of what became an Eastern Persian-Tajik ethnic identity."
You could say the modern-day Tajiks are Persians, but as a subgroup. They're not the same as the Persians in Iran. You don't see Tajiks and Dari-speakers going around and calling themselves Persian either. Honestly I think many Dari-speakers in Afghanistan would be pissed if you called them for Persian. Historically however Tajik was a synonym with Persian, but that's another story. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Thank you for that comment, it was very, very informative and definitely helped shed some light on the issue. One question that seems to always linger in this discussion is what about the descendants of the historical Persian figures that came from the east, far beyond modern Iran's even easternmost borders of Mashhad? I am speaking of people like Rudaki, Rumi, ibn Sina, and so on. And what about the fact that the modern Persian language and literature, such as Persian poetry essentially bloomed outside of Iran in Khorasan? What is the explanation for the idea (that is currently being pushed by LouisA and Rye) that the aforementioned people were Persians, but their descendants who make up the bulk of the Persian-speaking communities of these regions are not Persian? I get what you're saying, but it would also imply that people like Rumi, Rudaki, etc. were probably Persian-speakers vs. being ethnically Persian as defined by LouisA and Rye, who have no way to resolve this discrepancy; they simply dismiss the argument and say, "Well, those people from back then were Persians, but the people living there in the same lands today are not Persians." This is probably the biggest issue with the article and we need to fully resolve it together. Your input definitely helped, but the question still lingers: Who made up the bulk of the people of "Khorasan Bozorg" and if it was Persians, where did they go? —570ad (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@570ad:, thanks for reverting yourself. That's indeed a proper gesture to show that you want to keep it productive! ; ) The thing is, that the reliable sources don't call them Persian. Because no such source exists. I know I've asked and said this numerous times, but its because every time, you give us the feeling that you're evading it by giving (historically correct, I will add) anekdotes. We are only allowed to edit according to the reliable sources. Its really a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and we are ought to stick to it. Hence, Wikipedia considers that it's not our job to fill in the answer to "where they did go" (referring to the last sentence of your previous response). Our opinion accounts for basically nothing here. Yes, historically, the terminations were used interchangeably, and historically (from the late Medieval era) they were used to denote the same thing. We all agree about that, we proved it, and there are many sources that back this up. But to say that the "Persian-speakers of Afghanistan and Tajikistan" or the "Tajiks of Afghanistan and Tajikistan" are Persians is unsourced WP:OR, as it stands. Simply and only because no source backs this up. HistoryofIran mentioned the same thing correctly. We really need to explicitly stick to the sources, please keep this in mind. We're starting to do well though, I will add! - LouisAragon (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, I think this edit is pretty good (made by IP 77.xx). I think its even justified to call it simply spot on.[2] @HistoryofIran, I believe it basically covers that what we both mean, what do you think? It sticks well to the source too, as well as the other sources that are to be found about this. What should we do about Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan though?
I noticed btw, that the article is missing a lot of important information about the historic Persian communities of Shirvan/Arran (present-day Azerbaijan), southern Dagestan, Mesopotamia (Iraq), as well as of Asia Minor. Outside of Fars/Pars, many of these communities far pre-date any noteworthy communities elsewhere. Enc. Iranica has numerous proper articles about this matter, for a start. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful source that adds to the already (verifiably correct) statements; H. F. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan: an Ethnography of the Moghols and Related Peoples of Afghanistan. The Hague: Mouton, 1962: [3]; p. 75: "... the Tajiks of Western Afghanistan [are] roughly the same as the Khûrâsânî Persians on the other side of the line ..." - LouisAragon (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have to take note that most of the Tajik-Persian population of Khorasan and Transoxiana was massacred by Genghis Khans genocidal army, and was settled by many Turks/Mongols who become Persianized, whilst Iranians from Iran also settled there. But yeah then again the Khorasani Persians resemble more the Persians of Afghanistan/Tajikistan than the Western Persians. As I said, it's a very tricky one. But ya even the Persian language we today speak in Iran has been heavy influenced by Eastern Iranian languages, hence why even the most pure words in Persian are quite different from other Iranian languages that have much more in common with each other. The most 'pure' active Persian language today is Lori, which is funnily almost mutually intelligible to the Kurdish spoken in Iran. Btw this is a interesting read [4]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a step towards the right direction, but I was waiting for some kind of consensus here before making further edits which are still necessary. @HistoryofIran. Central Asia was heavily Turkified, but I want to point out that the Tajik-Persian population still exist there. Turko-Mongols who were Persianized are now called Hazaras. They are distinguishable from Tajiks from their phenotype and dialect and they do not consider themselves Persian or Iranian. 77.98.4.100 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Uzbeks and Tajiks for example, many of them have the same Asiatic features, which is rare among Western Persians (more common among Khorasani Persians though). Saying Hazaras are the only Persian-speaking people who are descendants of Turko-Mongols is incorrect. Many Transoxian/Khorasan cities such as Bukhara and Samarkand were depopulated and destroyed. Of course, the Tajik-Persian population which was descended from the Eastern Iranians still exist, but not by a very large margin, although not by a small margin either I think. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to digress too much from the actual discussion, but this is a common misconception we have in Iran that "Afghanis" (as a collective term grouping them all together, regardless of actual ethnic background) is that they are "Asian/Mongol," and this is simply not true. I'm not sure of the exact numbers of the ethnic makeup of Afghan refugees in Iran, it's possible that Hazaras outnumber the others, but inside Afghanistan, they're a minority. There are genetic studies done on them and several other groups in the region that compared their DNA with that of the "average" Mongol DNA and it showed a very high fidelity (the most similarity in fact outside of Mongolia!). But other groups that were studied did not have as high genetic similarity. So the notion that Tajiks are "Mongoloid" is simply incorrect. There is a history of intermixing, yes, but overall, the groups of people have kind of stayed within their own ethnicity for the most part, which explains why Hazaras as a group are so "genetically pure."
In Iran, there are also people who look like Hazaras or "Asian" looking, such as Khodadad Azizi as a famous example, but they're only a small part of the overall racial makeup of the country. Most Persian speakers of Afghanistan can range from blond/red-hair, blue/green eyes to very dark features (some even look like Indians), but this is the exact same thing in Iran. I have met Iranians who look darker than Ghandi, but also have met others that look "European," and both are the "same" people, though their features are very different physically. The average look between Persian speakers in Iran and Afghanistan is the same in my experience. They're not really distinguishable from one another if don't have other clues that help identify their background (e.g., clothing, accent, behavior, etc.). —570ad (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: All historical Persian figures - including and especially those from regions traditionally inhabited by Tajiks (i.e. Tajikistan as well as Merv, Samarkand, Bukhara, Balkh, Herat etc) - link to this page. This page has (wrongly) been restyled as an article on Persians in modern day Iran, despite Persians in Afghanistan and Central Asia contributing a massive amount to the Persian language, culture and identity.

Writing "the east" is too vague. The east where? India? China? Why skirt around naming the countries, if they are an important part of the article? You vetoed 570ad's edit, which comprised of including the countries in the first line, so I suggested this new edit instead. It's an important part of the article as it clarifies the distinction between Persians in Iran vs Afghanistan and Central Asia. If you negate every attempt to address issues on the Talk page, they'll remain unresolved which will just lead to endless edit warring by future users.

If you're asking why Afghanistan is mentioned separate from "southern Central Asia", it's because it's not a Central Asian country ergo it has to be mentioned separately.

The body itself doesn't mention Afghanistan/Central Asia because the distinction regarding Persians/Tajiks are clarified in the lede, so there's no need to elaborate a great deal in the body. Although, I don't mind elaborating in the body if you want.

In any case, it's a minor edit that doesn't need reverting over such an unsubstantial reason. 77.98.4.100 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add another note that there has been no known mass migration of Western Iranians to Eastern Iranian lands after the Mongol's genocide that was indicated here by a previous editor. If you have either any western academic or Persian sources that indicated a mass migration -- let me know. Most Tajik-Persians are still direct descendants of Eastern Iranians, and while yes, like many Persians of Iran, some have some Turkic admixture due to being historically heavily urbanized and mingled with urban Turks (Sarts). With that said, most genetics have shown that Tajiks/Eastern Persians are genetically more distant from both Turkic and Western Iranians in comparison to their relation to other modern Eastern Iranians (ie Pashtuns), especially within either the present-day Afghan or rural populations. Phenotypically, it is hard for either ethnic Iranians from either present-day Iran or outside of Iran to distinguish from each outside of accent, clothing, etc -- and this is pretty much seen within the diaspora population. I have been confused for Kurd, Iranian Persian, Tajikistani Persian, Afghan Persian, Mazandarani, Pashtun, (even) Arab etc etc by other ethnic Iranians depending on the context. (All) Afghans === Hazara/Mongoloid is a false stereotype, and Uzbekstani/Tajikistani Tajiks-Persians === Turkic is also a false stereotype. There is a large ethnic Iranian population with clear Caucasoid features in all three countries.

--Jamaas9 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PERSIAN PEOPLE ARE IRANIAN PEOPLE

Article is so convoluted it makes no sense. Article needs a complete overhaul, one hopefully that puts to rest the idea that "Persian" people aren't just plain old fashioned Iranians.

Norwegians don't call themselves 'Vikings' and Italians don't call themselves 'Romans'. I think I pretty much made my point.

Why is there no mention of Fars province in the history section?

There should be an available link for someone in the history section of Persian people for Pars province. Shadzad (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing/Adding to more historical Persian information (Tajiks/Tats)

Hello, is there any valid reason that Uzbekistan is not mentioned in regards to Tajiks/Eastern Persians outside of present-day Iran? There is anywhere from 1.5-12M (more than Tajikistan) Tajiks in Uzbekistan, so it needs to be added. Furthermore, it has been noted by reliable western scholars that Tajik's are culturally repressed in Uzbekistan, and WP is neither a place to perpetuate nor right great wrongs. Thus, we must remain truly neutral, and true neutrality requires us to include anything that has been verified by reliable academic sources -- and the existence of a native Tajik/Eastern Persian population is verified in Uzbekistan by reliable academic sources per WP:RS requirements. If no one has any objections nor plans to revert my edits -- I will go ahead and include Uzbekistan to the list of countries.

I also think that it might be useful and helpful for readers to get a sense of which famous Persians were from outside of present-day Iran (al-Khwārizmī, Avicenna, Rumi) -- what does everyone think about adding some famous historical Eastern/Central Asian Persians and Caucasian Persian to the lede?

--Jamaas9 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does everyone think of adding some more relevant categories to the list on this talk page? Again, it only lists Western/Caucasus Persians (present-day Iran/Azerbaijan) -- don't we need to add some of the present-day Tajik's (Eastern Persian) homeland (so, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan) as well considering all their famous ancestors autolink to this specific Persian page? Please let me know what everyone thinks. --Jamaas9 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamaas9: Uzbekistan was probably missed out. I don's see anything wrong with mentioning it. However, coming up with a picked-up list of medieval figures to the lede would neither be qualifiable nor necessary. The lede already contains a detailed paragraph concerning the issue of the Tajiks and Tats, and I believe that is sufficient.
Regarding the talk page, I'm not sure if WikiProject Azerbaijan itself is required here. Either that should be removed or the WikiProjects of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan would also be reasonable to add.
Rye-96 (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rye-96: Salam Ryan, Uzbekistan was removed previously when I added it to the lede without a username -- without a just cause. My message was to ensure that it would not be removed again and to argue my case if it would have been. I have noticed biases and issues regarding Persian People and Iranian peoples such as misquotes and personal POV that almost always benefits Persians of present-day Iran and create at least an implicit bias against Tajiks and Tats. Please check the Rumi talk page for just one clear example. As a Khurasani, my goal is to ensure the highest quality of objective scholarship not only for the benefit of all readers but also to personally ensure that works were written by ethnic Iranians (I have noticed that many editors on these Iranian/Aryan pages identify as at least partially Iranian/Aryan ethnically.) or even about ethnic Iranians to still maintain the highest quality of scholarship that our people were well-known for historically.
@Wario-Man: suggested that I help improve this page than individually improve the quality of each famous ethnic Iranian who happens to contribute directly into Persian culture and identity. Again, this page is not meant for simply Persians native to present-day Iran as Persian/Parsi is still an acceptable name for modern Tajiks and Tats. There is almost no mention of any impact of Persians outside of present-day Iran except for some reference to famous Persians outside of present-day Iran such as Rumi. Greater Khorasan was a centre of culture/society/place of development of New Persian, but how often is even mentioned compared to other parts of our shared Persian cultural sphere? As we both know, these famous Persian figures did not come out of some sort of cultural vacuum -- they are products the native Persian heritage/culture/language mentioned in the lede. Don't you think it is objective to explain more of that impact to principally western audiences (given this is the English, not the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia) who may have a very little background in Persian studies -- hence, their need to use encyclopedic references such as this website. Our recorded history is both very old and extensive, hence, we will have a good deal to cover for people even to understand the basics.
Given this entire explanation, it's not acceptable to remove present-day Azerbaijan or exclude present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan when a significant portion of Middle/New Persian identity was developed in those present-day countries, and those countries still have native ethnic Iranian Persian-speaking people who are considered direct descendants of the societies/cultures/people who shaped the "Persian identity" that is covered in this page. Furthermore, those people still speak Persian as their native language, and this historical page is referenced when writing about some of their famous ancestors/empires/etc. Thus, it is a rightful part of their national history...as it happened on their soil with their own native population. And their native ethnic Iranian Persian-speaking people still live in that exact same land. If you do not feel like this a more objective way to approach this page -- please let me know, and please explain how your perspective is preferred for encyclopediac reasons.
This bias has been noted for over a year, and it needs to have some at least some superficial improvements if we want to consider this an acceptable and unbiased reference. I suggest we add another section to the page that introduces Greater Khorasan with a small lede that links to the main page regarding this historical cultural capital of our people. It will help people implicitly understand how there was a resurgence of Persian culture/society post-Islamization, which was a major part of the development of our modern New Persian culture and identity. We should do something similar for Tats. What does everyone think about that? Kind Regards -B. Khurasani
--Jamaas9 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally, the history page needs to be expanded to include post-Islamization and post-Sassanid Persian history. Not only the development and resurgence of a native Persian identity missing post-Muslim-conquest but also the state-mandated conversion to Twelver Shia Islam by the Safavids is another very high-level piece of more modern Persian history that is absent. Again, this answers extremely basic questions related to both Iranian and Persian studies like...how did Persians produce so many famous Sunnis, while the present-day state called Iran is decidedly Twelver Shia? An objective encyclopedia shouldn't completely ignore major parts of an ethnicity's history, especially when these portions of our history is rather vital in understanding the development of said ethnic group and quite relevant in understanding modern-day topics related to the people and their related modern institutions such as their current government(s). This addition may have been more relevant in another talk section, but it is still related to Tajiks/Tats to some degree.
--Jamaas9 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to page on Tajik people

Now that this article has recently been restricted to Iranian nationals, more needs to be done to integrate this page and the article on Tajik people.

I am reading an article on Nasir Khusraw, born all the way in Qabodiyan. He is described as 'Persian' in the article. I click on the Persian hyperlink, and it leads to this page, which is about Persian speaking Iranian nationals only. At least I am somewhat knowledgeable on the history of the region to know that Nasir Khusraw was not an immigrant from the modern territory of Iran, but someone who is not familiar would very well think that because of the way this article has nationalized Persian identity. According to this article, being "Persian" is not about ancestry (ancestral to south-west Iran) or cultural-linguistic (which would include Tajiks), it's based on political borders. Fair enough, but I think this should be clarified, either on the pages of these historical figures or on this page itself, otherwise it is deliberately misleading readers.

I suggest this article itself could elaborate further on the very close ties of Persian speakers of Iran and Tajik people (and Tat people, if there are users knowledgeable on it). For example, a first step is to put at the top of this article:

For people of Persian heritage in Central Asia, see Tajiks

Additional information could be added under the "Name" section for the varying usages of Persian as an ethnic marker throughout history, from ancient to medieval times. Please discuss here for alternative suggestions.

EdenKZD (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdenKZD: I think that is a good idea. For starters, we can also just change the lede to state what is already accepted and accounted for in Iranian studies:

″ ...most influential Persian figures were native from outside Iran's present-day borders to the northeast in Central Asia and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent to the northwest in the Caucasus proper."

That way, the lede is neither misleading and it is a quite easy fix regarding all the historical figures the Tajik people, the modern Iranian Persian, and modern Tat people share. Again, outside of Richard Frye's work, which is a bit anachronistic in regards to ethnic studies (scholars interpretation of formerly colonized lands changes a lot quite quickly for a variety of reasons), there is no way to say that all these famous historical Persians originated from the population that lives in present-day Iran. We have no known historical record that indicates a large migration even though some editors here promote that, and many of these famous historical scholars make indications that they are effectively just Persianized local Iranians. This is rather clear if you understand/comprehend Persian sources, but the average reader would presumably not be able to do that if they are using WP as a reference/learning tool. If no editors have qualms about what we are requesting to change, we will go ahead and change it as every day that this page remains so nationalized -- the further the credibility of the WP degrades.

Furthermore, lack of clarity has real-life implications for say...Afghan residents in Iran (who have a history of documented abuse) and how Tajik-Persians-Tats interact within the diaspora. Unfortunately, many of the stereotypes that were discussed in this talk page and historical talk page do happen in real life -- ie: 1. "We know that Persians lived in present-day Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Uzbekistan at ONE POINT, but they NO LONGER LIVE THERE." -- this implies modern Tajiks are not descendants of the historical Persians from that region, which is false. 2. "Tajiks are analogous to Hazaras" -- this is both completely racist to both ethnic groups for a variety of different reasons and disregards their entire history. This point was repeatedly made, and frankly, if one needs to ask such question multiple times...perhaps one does not have the required knowledge to be in a discussion regarding Tajiks vs Persians. If you accept editing pages on WP, you must have at least working knowledge on the topic otherwise it may be a burden for current and future editors to fix unnecessary mistakes. Editing WP is not meant as a way to gain basic knowledge regarding a group. Of course, one will learn as an editor and that is part of the group-process and education in general, but we all should have some level of competency so we may positively contribute to this project. 3. "XYZ Famous Persian-speaking Iranian belongs primarily and predominantly to Iranian Persians..." -- again, that's an attitude that is due to a nationalized mindset. I assure that there are plenty of Tajiks/Tats/ethnic Iranians that think the opposite regarding the most famous Iranian/Tajiks such as Rumi with just cause. Some of them are presumably their genetic ancestor. Furthermore, I have been told that Iran's primacy to our shared history is due to Iran being called Iran...as in the only modern successor to all the famous Iranian/Persian dynasties. As a reminder...Tajikistan is literally Persian for "Land of Iranians" or "Land of Persians" depending on how you want to translate the Persian word "Tajik".

WP is not here to endorse any side in particular, and editors have to remain neutral, polite, and respectful. Furthermore, please refrain from name-calling -- if this type of abusive behavior continues, especially to self-identified Tajiks/Tats or other ethnic Iranians trying to improve our shared heritage -- I will escalate this. Given that I have discovered even more similar issues regarding our related pages, I do not appreciate that type of behavior as it weakens the "Good faith" clause we abide by. Please be more respectful, and know your place -- this includes me, of course too. When that happens, an apology is probably a good idea. Appreciate everyone who read this, and looks forward to working with you so that WP will be an excellent resource in all things related to Persians and Iranians. Thanks and kind regards. - Bahram Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]