Talk:Tajiks

Gender imbalance in the infobox

The infobox presents 25 famous Tajiks, selected at random. The gender imbalance is quite scandalous as there are 23 men and only 2 women. I'd move that at least 1/3 should be women, there really is no reason to push such a strong gender imbalance, so 5-6 men could be replaced by 5-6 Tajik women.Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not even Tajiks. Eg - Ferdowsi's birthplace is located in Iran and he wrote in Persian. 99.229.119.114 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is true, many of the people in the gallery image are not tajiks. Akmal94 (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Akmal94

Problem in gallery and request for this article to be moved

A lot of people in the image gallery are represented as Tajiks while this is not true. Ferodwsi was born in Iran, therefore he could not have been Tajik. Secondly Rabia Balkhi was of Arab descent therefore she could not have been of Tajik descent either. Lastly, why is Muhammad of Ghori included in the gallery of Tajiks? He was not a Tajik, the ghorids themselves were believed to be Pashtuns and they were NOT native speakers of the Persian language but rather patronizers of the culture. There seems to be a lot of vandalism and propaganda being posted by Tajiks here themselves with no evidence being provided. I also request the Tajik article to be moved to the "Persian People" article as a sub-category to erase confusion of Tajiks being a separate group.

Akmal94 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Akmal94

@Akmal94: Agreed, the current gallery is very problematic. Many Persians are mistakenly being portrayed as 'ethnic Tajiks' in an entirely anachronistic manner in order to perpetuate a Tajik ethnogenesis. Most of these subjects are only referred to as Tajik in the propagandist literature which was mass produced by 20th-century Tajik nationalists. Even if they were historically referred to as Tajik, it had an entirely different meaning in the past. It was used solely to refer to Arabs and Iranian converts to Islam [1]. See [2] for information on how the modern-day state of Tajikistan attempts to claim virtually all Iranian peoples as ethnic Tajiks irregardless of whether they lived in Central Asia or not.

The Encyclopedia Iranica article referenced on this very page has some interesting information pertaining to this:

"The modern meaning of “Tajik” has been distorted in Tajik-language and Russian academic usage (both Soviet and post-Soviet) by the propaganda of the complementary agendas of Soviet nationalities policy and Tajik nationalism[...] In most scholarly writing on Persian literature and cultural history (of Iran and India as well as Central Asia) the adjective is usually construed as “Perso-Tajik” or “Tajik-Persian” poetry, historiography, etc., in an atopical and anachronistic application of the national ethnonym to the entire Persianate world [...]"

I'm going to go ahead and remove all of the purported 'Tajiks' whom have no references to their supposed ethnicity on their article pages. The allusion to the Samanid Empire on this article are also troubling [3]. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Akmal94: The procedure for requesting moving a page is set forth at Wikipedia:Requested moves. What you appear to be suggesting is a merger of this article into the article entitled Persian People. See Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from. If you choose to continue, please be sure that usage on both templates points to the same place for discussion. If you are serious it would also be appropriate to give notice of the merger discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tajikistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A user tried to again restore all the medieval Persians and Chorasmians etc into infobox to claim them as Tajiks on Wikipedia. They were not Tajiks so I reverted him. Khestwol (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Extended off-topic discussion on who is edit-warring and who should provide sources

I'm afraid I fail to see what the issue is here. Whether there are references or not to an individual being Tajik in the WP article is irrelevant, as WP is not WP:RS. Ethnicity galleries are not usually sourced, but of course we should not add nonsense. However, none of the two users who repeatedly have blanket deleted have provided any real reason (and no, saying "o references to their supposed ethnicity on their article pages" is not a reason). Kindly provide relevant arguments for each individual you want to remove and then wait for the discussion to end instead of the recent edit warring you have engaged in.Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC) @Jeppiz: You have completely misinterpreted and mischaracterized the entire situation. You may want to read WP:EDITWAR to refine your understandings of what an edit war is. This page is certainly not under WP:1RR restrictions and this issue has been discussed and agreed upon by myself and Akmal94 (directly above your comment nonetheless) prior to my removal. There have been zero objections raised on this talk page until you accused me(?) of edit-warring. "Ethnicity galleries are not usually sourced" is not an argument. This is irrelevant, as I am not referring to the sourcing of the gallery itself, but of the subjects who appear in the gallery. It would be a violation of WP:V to purport these figures as "Tajik" on their own page or any other page without providing a single source. In case you forgot what this policy entails, allow me refresh your memory: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. If you have an actual argument for why these images should persist, please present it. Otherwise, you might want to re-consider your reversion and faulty accusation. The previous two editors who have reverted me and Khestwol did not take it upon themselves to use the talk page to discuss my or Akmal's reservations, and neither have you. I have provided a clear and concise argument for why these images should not appear in the gallery and have supported it with sources and Wikipedia policies. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) @Elspamo4: Unfortunately you misrepresent the situation, and I see that Khestwol has reverted once again, and as usual without providing any reason. First, you are both most certainly edit warring. You seem to confuse things and believe that only a violation of 3RR is edit warring. That is not the case. You make an edit, you're reverted, but you still redo it, well, you're edit warring. You ask me to read WP:EDITWAR, and I will ask you to do the same. You might learn already from the introduction "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense". So yes, both Elspamo4 and Khestwol are actively involved in edit warring. Second, if you want to change the article, the onus is on you to explain why. I already asked you to do this, by providing a reason for why you feel any given individual should be removed. I have not said you're wrong, I've simply pointed out that your edit warring is wrong. It's entirely possible a good argument can be made for your preferred version, but it's up to you to make it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) @Jeppiz: My argument is not simply "my edits were right". To put it more accurately, there has been absolutely no attempt at discussion by the reverting editors or even a hint of why they reverted besides an edit summary by User:Scytsari calling my removal 'vandalism'. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this since there is a possibility that they didn't see the talk page as I forgot to leave an edit summary explaining my removal. However, this doesn't justify their re-addition of outright bogus material.

I won't ask you to read all of my arguments, since you're probably not interested in Tajiks, but do me a favor and read the articles of some of the more notable people purported as Tajik on this article, such as Avicenna, Khwarizmi or Muhammad al-Bukhari. You will not find a single mention of "Tajik" on their article pages. I searched for books in an attempt to prove a possibility of their ethnicity being Tajik and I couldn't find any sources which claim this to be the case. Hence, I removed them from this page. This was done per the policy: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Removing unreferenced and unproven information is not edit warring. You said it yourself: "of course we should not add nonsense". Adding Khwarizmi or Avicenna to the gallery is not any less nonsensical than adding, say, Obama or Will Ferrel. There is no justification for labeling any of these people as "Tajik" because there are no references, on or off Wikipedia, which stake this claim. Thus, the onus is on the people who wish to re-add the pictures to at least find some sort of reference purporting these peoples' Tajik ethnicity and plaster it on their article pages. I have no obligation to find a source which argues against their Tajik ethnicity; trying to do so would be attempting to prove a negative. I really don't see how any sort of a consensus would be required to remove ludicrously inaccurate and unreferenced matieral, even in ethnicity galleries. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: I'm sure you agree I cannot be held responsible for what User:Scytsari wrote, and while I don't agree with the edit warring, I'm the first to agree that you're certainly not a vandal, and that your edits are made in good faith. However, your arguments are very poor. You say it is no less nonsensical to add Obama than to add Avicenna. Pardon me, but that is where you lose all credibility. Avicenna spoke and wrote the language that would develop into modern Tajik (and modern Persian), he was born in a city that both then and now was/is populated by what became ethnic Tajiks. If you think that that is comparable to Obama or Will Ferrel being Tajiks, well, I'm afraid you either lack rudimentary knowledge or you really cannot present a case. Your tiresome insistence that it is "ludicrously inaccurate" material is rather empty. Both your silly comparison with Obama and your sweeping generalizations only serve to highlight that you appear to have no factual arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Elspamo4. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Many of the nonsense additions were Medieval Persians, besides a Ghurid, and a Khwarezmian-speaker (i.e. Al-Biruni). Reliable sources don't consider them Tajiks. We can add only those figures to the gallery who are unncontroversially Tajiks. Khestwol (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should only add figures who are uncontroversially Tajiks. Deducing that Avicenna is Tajik because he was born in a city which was populated by 'what became Tajiks' is pure OR and anachronic. I also don't see how speaking Persian and Arabic makes him Tajik. Please find a reliable source which claims he is Tajik. Keep in mind that the ethnicity of historical figures are a hotly debated issue; Avicenna has been claimed by multiple ethnic groups. The only literature that claims he is Tajik is state propaganda. I also think you completely misunderstand the context in which Tajik was used in historical times. It certainly wasn't an ethnonym in Avicenna's time. Elspamo4 (talk)

>I also think you completely misunderstand the context in which Tajik was used in historical times. It certainly wasn't an ethnonym in Avicenna's time. are you uneducated or what? The term tajik was most certainly used during his time - the word tajik is literally a synonym for persian, one is a greek term and one is a turkic term all for the same farsi/parsi speakers - avicenna was born in the samanid empire, to say he was not a persian/tajik is fallacious. Mad vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of vandalism. No one is saying he was not Persian. That still does not make him Tajik. Tajik is a specific sub-group of Persian people, not the other way around. Unless you are able to find a reliable source stating very clearly that he was a part of this particular ethnic sub-group, and place it on the articles of the people you claim are 'Tajik', I see little benefit of continuing this discussion. And, for the last time, place of birth is not a determinant of ethnicity. Doubly so when you try to apply this faulty logic in such an anachronistic manner. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Uzbeks page doesn't seem to have any 5th century Persians in their ethnicity gallery. All of the people listed as Uzbek have SOURCES in their articles supporting this view. So please stop re-adding nonsense state propaganda to this page. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Scytsari: I know Tajiks are Central Asian Persians, and Tajik is a synonym for Persian-speaking groups. But using Tajik instead of Persian is anachronism and original research. You need historical sources or reliable references to use Tajik as an identity for medieval Persians/Iranians of Central Asia. Why? Because the definition of modern ethnic group Tajik may be confusing and you need to clarify its medieval usage as an ethnic identity. Try Encyclopædia Iranica official website. If you provide reliable sources, nobody will remove them from the infobox again. We can't use our very own interpretation of the sources. For example, if a source says "X was a Persian...", we should only use "Persian", not Iranian/Afghan/Tajik/. --Zyma (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

>That still does not make him Tajik. Tajik is a specific sub-group of Persian people, not the other way around Again, demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about, I advise you to go to iranica or any other source and educate yourself on the term "tajik", it's etymology, when it was used, why it was used and who it refers to. Even up until the 1800s german sources referred to farsi speaking iranians in iran as tajiks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As juicy and enlightening reading through this discussion was, it seems like some users do not like our staunch edits. Granted, we have no agenda here, all we are trying to do is clear up confusion which can mislead others who may come and read this article. However, 3 people here including me, Khestwol and Elspamo4 have agreed that the current gallery is very problematic and misleading. None of these people can be seen as "Tajiks" because the term "Tajik" was not used for a single ethnic group until the soviet era which even then had a negative notion with inhabitants of Tajikistan. Why forget that the term was used specifically to Arabs in the past? Does that mean Ibn Sina was Arab then? Its just as silly to add a portrait of Kaniskha in the Pashtun People gallery just because he happened to be from their region because the term Afghan was not applied later. We can only add pictures of people in modern times who accept and seem themselves as Tajik rather then past figures which can be seen as controversial. Furthermore it seems like past edit has once again been reverted by an unknown user with no reason being given. Akmal94 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Who should be included in the infobox and why

OK, a lot of discussion has been made above about the content of the infobox, but none of the discussion was productive because no one provided any WP:reliable sources for their claims. Let's try to make some productive discussion. As I understand, certain editors (Elspamo4, Akmal94) claim that some images should be removed from the infobox (namely, images of Rudaki, Avicenna, Khwarizmi, Biruni, Al-Bukhari, Jami, Nasir Khusraw, Ismail Samani, Muhammad Ghori and Rabia Balkhi). The reason provided for the removal is that those persons were not Tajiks. Whether that is correct or not, I don't know. But, indeed, the article does not cite any reliable sources to prove that hey were Tajiks. So, Elspamo4 removed those images as they present unreferenced information (diff). That was perfectly correct thing to do: unreferenced material that is suspected to be wrong should be removed until the source is found. After that, some editors (i.e. Jeppiz) reinstated the images (diff) claiming that "there is no consensus to delete". That was the wrong step. We don't need consensus to remove unsourced information from the article. Instead of reinstating the images, Jeppiz should have provided some sources that those persons were Tajiks before making edit. But, as I can see, no sources were ever provided. This resulted in an full-scale edit war, and the article is now temporarily protected. So, to conclude: following Wikipedia's policy on WP:verifiability, we should not include images of people for whom we have no reliable sources to prove that they were Tajiks. We don't need consensus for that, Wikipedia policies are themselves result of a longstanding consensus. So, editors arguing for the inclusion of those images should use those few days while the article is protected to present some reliable sources to prove those persons were Tajiks. If no sources are presented in a timely manner, those images should be removed. Now, please, everybody, stop arguing about who started the edit-war and who is guilty, and start presenting sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)