Talk:Tajiks

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)

@EdenKZD: Hi EdenKZD, hope you are well. I just wanted to discuss the recent revert regarding Hinduism, and sorry for getting carried away with the edits. Ghorids did have a sizable Hindu population from my understanding, but I can't find an explicit reference that the Hindus were Tajiks in English, so you may be right (too tired to check Persian sources as well ATM). Is there something I am missing from my understanding of this topic? Every reliable source from my knowledge states they followed Buddhism and at least had followers of Hinduism until they became vassals of the Ghaznavids and at that point, they Islamized and propagated Islam. Please let me know if I am incorrect. Quickly, a cursory check on Enclyopedia Iranica doesn't say anything explicit -- so I am trusting your perspective. The WP page does, and there is much evidence of Afghanistan's Hindu heritage but we can't jump to conclusions without RS support. Furthermore, it is unsourced technically, but we have sourced that the Ghorids are most likely Tajik in origin in the main article which was my initial reasoning for that inclusion. Thanks and kind regards. --Jamaas9 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war with you so if you can provide a few sources that Tajiks are Hindus then that's fine. Personally the idea of Tajiks being Hindus is a new one for me. I have not come across this claim in English/Farsi sources. EdenKZD (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A cursory check doesn’t come up with a anything explicit, and thus think your revert still remains as best. Frankly, there are higher priorities things than this imho to clean up. Planning to research and make a list of issues, fact checks, and also find some more updated sources. Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

& @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 (from Kabulistan), 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)

@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)

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)

No reason for this change in 2015.[4] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discovering that and it is good to note that for future editors in case the Dari vs Persian debate opens up again. (Which is reasonable that this discussion becomes more relevant after some stability for the Tajik people/native Persian speakers). Thank you again and appreciate your professional due diligence. Kind regards. --Jamaas9 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Tajik = Persian = Farsi (as an ethnic term?)

Hello all and good day, just wanted to start a discussion regarding this alternative name for the Tajiks. While it is technically correct and can be supported by Tajikistani scholars who describe themselves as "Tajik-Persian" or "Tajik/Eastern Persian" or some derivative of such, it does not make much sense from the understanding of formal Farsi-e-Dari/Parsi to state Tajiks are "Farsi". If this is not the case with varieties of modern Tajiki Persian let me know, as I am unable to understand their dialect's modern script.

All native Persian-speakers know we do not literally call ourselves "Persian" as in "Farsi" either historically or currently in any of the places where Persians/Tajiks live. We use cognates such as "Iranian", "Tajik", "Tat", etc. Tazik would be the correct technical term in my opinion if we want to use an alternative term to describe "Tajiks" as a cognate for "Persian" but I do not think that this is supported using modern scholarships. If it is, please let me know.

Most people just state that Tajik = Persian (as an alternative title) by the literal definition of literary New Persian and its accepted historical usage by both ancestors of the Tajiks and other people who identify as having native Persian heritage. What do you all think? This is a rather technical linguistic issue so if someone well-versed in linguistics may chip -- much appreciated.

Thanks and kind regards. B. Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"of Iranian origin"

The Tajiks are Persian speakers, but this doesn't mean they are necessarily of Iranian origin. In fact, the only other Persian-speaking group in central Asia is the Hazara, who are of Monogolian origin and adopted Persian. All others are called Tajik. Like the peoples around them, the Tajiks have a mixed Iranian-Turkic origin. What makes one Tajik is language, not origin. Vis-à-vis the Hazara, one could say that a Tajik is a "non-Mongolian Persian-speaker from Central Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.144.252 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who originally wrote that, but it was a misconstrued statement since the Iranians originated in Central Asia and migrated southward and not the other way around. It's been fixed now. DA1 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: "with homelands in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan." or should it be "with present-day homelands in..."? Since how the term is used in the contemporary context (which is what that statement was talking of), I would presume the latter. Because the historical usage didn't necessarily involve those three countries alone (the use of Roman for contrast means it may have been used in Iraq/Levant as well). Alternately, how far does one's "homeland" go back? (one could say Central Asia as a whole is homeland). I'm only bringing this up because everyone seems fixated on reverting to preexisting versions of the article, but I'm reading it and seeing grammatical issues and connotations in the older version as the subtle meanings are very different. DA1 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I would also go with your latter proposal. Please feel free to change it in the article or let me know if you prefer me to do it. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Appreciate the response. I would like you to do it if you may, just revert to my last version (I don't want to seem like a problematic editor reverting everyone). I would like to make it clear that I've meticulously observed the grammar and language of the lede in comparison to what existed before. I haven't removed any sourced info, on the contrary I've: 1. fixed the language and wording, 2. added missing info about the Pamiris and Yaghnobis of Tajikistan that was previously left out, backed with citation. I have more info to add but for now it's a wait-and-see for who objects to what. DA1 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"ethnolinguistic designation" is unnecessary and sounds WP:OR. We don't use it for articles like this one. See how Encyclopedia Iranica defines Tajik:[5]

• The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān). Most Tajiks in the Pamirs (including about 34,000 in the Tašqorḡān district of the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region in southwestern China) are native speakers of several Eastern Iranian languages of the Pamir group (those in Tajikistan use Persian as an administrative and contact language, while those in China (speakers mainly of Sarikoli and Wakhi) generally do not know Persian, and use Uighur and Chinese in dealings with their neighbors.

Plus the lead has already clarified other usage:

• In China, the term is used to refer to its Pamiri ethnic group, the Tajiks of Xinjiang, who speak the Eastern Iranian Pamiri languages.[19][20] Similarly in Tajikistan, since the 1939 Soviet census, its small Pamiri and Yaghnobi ethnic groups are included as Tajiks.[21]

I will change the intro per Iranica. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Thanks very much for correcting that. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: That's because I added that second statement (you quoted) as I note earlier; it was literally reverted not long before I made my above comment, which I then wrote partly in response to it. DA1 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at revision history and noticed that, thanks for your contribution. I want to mention one more point. This is N-th time I see a section like this IP's comment here and the whole claim is wrong and pure personal analysis, e.g. calling Hazaras Mongols who just adopted Persian language, Ignoring Mongolian influence in Central Asia (especially among ethnic groups like Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs, and creating Iranian-Turkic-only origin for all Central Asians. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Speaking of that, peoples in parts of Central Asia certainly do have Mongol mixture genetically, but as an ethnic group they're not identified as such. Being instead Turkic or Iranic ethnicities, and an "ethnicity" really comes down to self-identification. In any case, I didn't really pay mind to what he had to say about Hazaras or Mongols but I did find the article's "of Iranian origin" statement to be misconstrued since the language implies Iran as a point of origin. –DA1 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That "of Iranian origin" was a bit confusing (not clarifying meta-ethnicity properly) although it linked to the right article. Now the lead is similar to other articles about ethnic groups. However I prefer "native to" instead of "present-day homelands". See Dutch people and Belarusians as examples. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: The hyperlink doesn't really offset the wording because you need to consider that the average reader often isn't even aware "Iranian" is a broad ethnic family. As for that Belarusian article, it seems to be kind of poorly sourced even in the body. As a sidenote I'll point out that articles involving Eastern Slavs and Russia are heavily politicized/undueweight. There is a deliberate attempt at minimizing mentions of pre-Slavic ethnic groups and Russian Empire/Soviet-era genocides. For example many articles downplay the native Circassians (genocided in the 1800s), and others the Crimean Tatar genocide (exiled in the 1940s). I much rather prefer users edit them for dueweight/NPOV, instead of using them as some sort of reference point. Articles on Xinjiang/Uighurs is another one with a lot of pro-China pov. –DA1 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say those articles are perfect or unbiased. My point was about how they introduced ethnic group and meta-ethnicity (writing style/formatting of lead section). I'm OK with your cleanup and simplifying[6], but why did you remove Zoroastrianism and Buddhism? They were religion of Tajiks' ancestors (Bactrians and Sogdians). Any specific reason for your removal? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: The infobox normally includes current stats of the population, including the religion. Although I have seen some where historical is included for religion section. However, even if we opt for that, there is an issue: the Tajik ethnicity is specifically a post-Sassanid (and post-Umayyad) ethnicity, because prior to the Islamic empires the region were Eastern Iranian speaking, namely the Bactrians, Sogdians and Khwarezmians. So it's actually referring to the religion of those ethnic groups. DA1 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense. And there's no need to ping me every time because I edit and watch this article since 2012.[7] So I don't miss/forgot anything. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I'm not sure if the Tajik identity precludes their historical religions, as there are still Central Asian Zoroastrian (they are crypto-Zorastrian) known as Tajiks. Also, other related Central Asian ethnicities such as Uzbek mention their ancestor's Iranian religion even though they are ethnically Turkic. The Ghorids appear to be classified as a Tajik by scholarly consensus even though they were initially Buddhist. No academic source mentions being "Muslim" as part of the "Tajik" identity.

I also suggest putting some sort of clarification for the languages. It should be something like --

″Persian (Dari and Tajiki)

Secondary languages: Pashto, Russian, and Uzbek.″

In this region, ethnical identity is usually tied with primary language, noth genetics or any other factor. (Educated/Urban) Tajiks are usually bilingual in Pashto in Afghanistan, Russian in Tajikistan, and Uzbek in Uzbekistan Right now, the vaguness is a bit misleading IMHO. What do you all think? HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying being Muslim is part of the Tajik identity, if there is citation for Zoroastrianism being practiced among Tajiks then feel free to add a RS and include Zoroastrian as part of the infobox as minority. But the religions of the Bactrians and Sogdians shouldn't be added to infobox of "Tajiks". Most infoboxes don't include "Historical/ancestral" religion and when they do it doesn't include their ethnic predecessors', but rather that specific ethnicity the topic (article) is about. DA1 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the word "Tajik" really means just "Iranian" (ethnically) if we are going to do a very straight translation. Tajiks themselves consider these part historical Iranian religions as part of what it means to be "Tajik"...I notice that ethnicities like Uzbeks do retain their historical religon as this is how Uzbeks define themselves. With that said, I don't have strong feelings either way about the historical religions. The languages, however, should be changed and will submit a change request for that to make it a bit clearer. -- HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's also contradicting itself because the article's section in Uzbeks says they practiced Manichaeism, but the infobox doesn't even list it. Tajik in the sense of what this article is about isn't about all Iranian peoples but a specific one. For all Iranians, Wikipedia has Iranian peoples. For Bactrians and Sogdians, there exists articles on those. DA1 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofTheAryans: Tajik =/= Iranian. Tajik appeared in medieval sources and referred to Persian-speaking groups. Older endonyms such as Dehqan and Aryan existed before appearance of name Tajik (see also Sart). For the religion, I don't see any notable stuff on articles like Demographics of Afghanistan, Religion in Afghanistan, Demographics of Tajikistan, and Religion in Tajikistan. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is something that you can check with linguistics, but Tajik definitely has been used to refer to either specifically sedentary Persian-speaking Iranics or just Iranics as a whole (this was usually done by Turks). Same with Dehqan or Aryan -- they are not language specific. Modern usage now restricts to just Eastern Iranics. With all this said, what is the logic with keeping Western Iranians such as Hafez when this page is talking about the modern demographic? When I removed him before and it was reverted -- was told this was a pure POV issue. He is not a native of Greater Khorasan. This appears irredenist for both sides (Iranian Persians + Tajiks). --HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)