User talk:LouisAragon

Yaghnobi

That's the classification used in the Routledge volume. Trying to bring some sanity to our classification articles. We have a specific field for ancestral forms.

BTW, other than Persian, do we have other direct descendents of Middle or Old Iranian languages? Wakhi from Khotanese/Tumsheqese, maybe, or Sangsari from Khwarezmian? Does Ossete hold up as a direct descendent of Scythian? — kwami (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the Safavid map

Take a look here [1]. Looks like our friend is keeping up his reversion and now even denying that the western Georgian kingdoms were vassal states of the Safavid dynasty. If we use that logic he uses, then the majority of the maps on this site should get changed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem is fixed. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message about it on your page. LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just stop disruptive edits

Hi, I just ask you to stop WP:disruptive edits to the articles of Pakistan, Muhammad Iqbal and related to that, first as the rule you should not remove the source even that is dead link and second if you are not able to access the source, ask your concerns on the talk page before removing the sourced content, and what the hell you are talking about all the sources are Pakistani and non of those are reliable??. Are you on any special mission on that part of the subject area articles?. I just warn you, and do not WP:Hounding articles that I have edited. Justice007 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You provide normal, reliable sources, and people won't revert it. Capisce? We are obliged here to create articles based on facts, not probabilities, wishful thoughts, or anything else that is not supportable by reliable, independent sources. Now a dead link is one story, but on the Pakistan article it was clear BS information. Also, I even did put it in a separate section on the talk page, and people agreed with me. Look, it's not our problem you sometimes claim bogus on your articles. Doing such things gives you the impression that you're probably just another one of those delusional Pakistani's/South Asians who wants to glorify his nation by associating it to other countries purely based on wishful thoughts, rather than supplying any trustworthy sources or back-up. Such kinds of people from that region in the world are in abundance on the internet, I know this. Now I don't want to label you in any way, but just provide good back-up/reliable sources, and people won't revert your edits or even think about it. And next time, keep your talk page harassments for yourself, or I will report you.

Regards. LouisAragon (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Dear LouisAragon, I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your efforts in reverting vandalism on articles related to WikiProject South Asia! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:LouisAragon, thanks for reverting edits made by 173.181.109.243 (talk · contribs). I've noticed this kind of thing a lot on Wikipedia. I recently tried to do the same with 69.124.40.225 (talk · contribs) but was reverted again by that user. I appreciate you monitoring these articles for nationalism, etc. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Why are you putting "what is now Afghanistan" in every Afghanistan related article? If you're not familiar with Afghanistan, the name "Afghanistan" has been widely used for many 100s of years. Please stop doing this because you're messing up those articles with your strange edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from Afghanistan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage of the termination Afghanistan to refer to the modern identity the nation has, has only been established since the 1700-1800's. That's very recent.

LouisAragon (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All nations were recently created, including United States, Germany, China, India, but we don't write 'what is now United States' or what is now Germany, China, or India. By the way, why don't you write that about Iran, which was only recognized as a country in 1935. Your edits on Afghanistan related articles are POVish and I'm going to start reverting if you keep it up. This is not a place to express your personal thoughts on subjects.Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

PoV'ish? What are you talking about? FYI, France, Germany and so on have also been recently created, and we also use the terminations "now in France/Germany" for them whenever needed. At least those "nations" had predecessing empires and acknowledged territories based on the same soil created and ruled by Frankish/Germanic peoples. The soil of what is now Afghanistan has always been ruled by foreigners up to 1709, wich makes a big difference when comparing it with France and Germany.

I don't want to label you, but I think you're very annoyed by the fact that Afghanistans identity is a very, very recent one (still to this date a vague concept considering its 20th century history, and what it's going through since the last 30+ years and it's society) Anyway, there's nothing bad about that to acknowledge it as most people do. Suck up your nationalistic feelings, bring sources, or bring it to the talk page if you don't agree with something. We're ought here to make factual, comprehensive articles, and not being blinded by nationalistic beliefs or thoughts.

PS: Iran has been called "Iran" by its native inhabitants since Parthian/Sassanian times. Before that, all outsiders referred to the same nation, the same thing, the same inhabitants, as Persia and Persians, from Achaemenid times, all the way up to 1935, in the Pahlavi era.(after wich Iran and Persia were made officialy interchangeable for the outside world) And like with what is now France and Germany, it has been ruled as a full empire and identity ever since, and not just a contested region for foreign power like it was with Iraq for the last 1000 years, or Afghanistan, or certain other nowadays nations in Europe, such as nowadays Ukraine.

Regards LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about what the local inhabitants called it, and that's irrelevant for this discussion. The country that we call today Iran was only recognized as Iran in 1935, before that it was monarchy and known only as Persia. This is what every educated person will tell you. I'm also not here to discuss about what Afghanistan has been going through since the last 30+ years. Bring sources? To what? It's you who appeared from no where and began inserting nationalistic beliefs or thoughts into Afghan related articles so it's you who is the problem. Wikipedia is major encyclopedia like Britannica and you can't be repeating "what is nowadays Afghanistan". I know you don't like the name Afghanistan, it may be difficult but keep your personal feelings to the side when editing. Bottom line is that Afghanistan was created and recognized as a state BEFORE Iran was. This fact may also be very difficult but you're going to have to learn to accept it.Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you considering where you're from. Of course, according history the international recognition of the name of the South Asian nation Afghanistan was before that of the nation Iran, but what does that have to do with like, anything you brought up here at first? You ask about why me and other users mention Afghanistan in a certain manner, and you bring up a whole different story. It seems you like to discuss a topic that hasn't to do anything with what you start with but ok, I'll play.

The Pahlavi dynasty merely replaced the previous (Qajar) dynasty. Reza Khan asked the international community to mention that same country, that had been called Persia for over 2500 years, as Iran. The first time Afghanistan got mentioned officially in a state document was in 1801, I think. (Still I don't see what this has anything to do with the thing you brought up).

What is my "nationalistic belief?" That I mention "nowadays Afghanistan?" Please enlighten me? I would do the same to any other articles for a nation in the same circumstance. If not, it creates a perpetual flow of anachronisms. Still you can't be some type of Afghan police here that gets offended when people merely edit according the rules, can you? If you dot agree with something, bring it to the respective articles talk page, or to the persons talk page, in a normal "civilized" way.

My job, like any other user here that had established itself since long, is to create and edit articles according the rules. If any articles mentioned certain aspects of Iran prior to 1935, we mention it as Persia or Iran, or as both, as it's fully interchangeable. The same way we do so usually for Russia prior to 1917, "Germany" before 1871, and so on.

It seems to me you have severe inferiority complexions, like I was told, many Afghans have.

You all of a sudden bring this whole topic to me, I mean like, what? What do I care about whether Afghanistan was approved internationally before X or Y. Get your issues fixed.

You don't need to reply to this. Next time I will report you for your harrassments.

PS: It seems you already got tons of warnings for vandalizing. You will be banned soon WP:BAN

LouisAragon (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Hello LouisAragon. As it is the 21st of May, I just wanted to take a look at this page. I did open the article entitled "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", then, oh, I check the first word in bold and it reads "Muhajirism". I thought I got into the wrong place since the word "muhajirism" is not something specific to the Circassian exodus. Later I saw that "-5,270". I do not think that it was a deliberate mistake of yours. I could not read the entire current article, but do you know what happened here? I know that it is not you who changed it, but I thought you could help me understand what is going on because you are among the editors of that page.

Besides, after 1864, the vast majority of Circassians migrated to the Ottoman Turkey and the rest to the Balkans and to some Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Syria, and Israel. Iran is not actually one of them if we are referring to the 1860s. Back in the Safavid era, yes, there were Circassian inhabitants (soldiers, mostly concubines, and other slaves) in Persia. There still exist some Circassians in Iran. However, it is not because those people migrated to Persia "following the Caucasian War that ended in 1864". Most of them are "former" inhabitants and they are not usually Abaza, Abkhaz, Adyghe (Abzakh, Adamiy, Besleney, Bzhedug, Hatuqwai, Kabarday, Makhosh, Mamkhegh, Natukhai, Shapsug, Temirgoy, Yegerquay, Zhaney, etc.), and Ubykh. On the contrary, those in Iran consist of Northeast Caucasian peoples such as Vainakhs, Ossetians, Karachays, Daghestanians, and Balkars. Yet, among the concubines were Adyghe-speaking ones such as the Abzakh and Kabardian, that is why both Abbas II (1642–1666) and Suleiman I (1666–1694) have Adyghe mothers. Moreover, These mothers (Agha and Nekakhet Khanums) came from princely Adyghe families. Maybe you know that Agha Khanum's brother was the Governor of Sakki, Shamhal Karamusal Sultan.

Please check this out: Muhajirism was the massive emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus into the Ottoman Empire and to a lesser extent Persia following the Caucasian War. The article is called "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians", but this sentence talks about all Caucasians (even South Caucasians such as Azerbaijani and Muslim Georgians). Those who speak Azerbaijani Turkish and South Caucasian languages are not included even in the broadest definition of Circassians. We know that the broadest definition in the Ottoman Empire and Iran consider North Caucasians to be Circassians. The southerns are excluded. This is another problem of the article. "To a lesser extent Persia" would be correct if the article were about the "muhajirism" only. For Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians, it is definitely wrong. If you do not mind, please check the Turkish version Çerkes Sürgünü. You will see what I mean.

Again, it says that among the ones that moved to Iran it included peoples from territories formerly under Iranian control, such as the Laks, Circassians (presumably only Kabardin, as they fell into the maximum extent of the Persian Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Empire), but also Azerbaijani, Shia Lezgins, and Muslim Georgians. Azerbaijani and Georgians? Right, but it is the wrong article. Notwithstanding, as I said, it seems that the article fails to distinguish between the formerly-settled Adyghes and the non-Circassian newcomers. It also confuses the consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828) with those of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus (1817–1864). The Russian conquest is the one which led to the "ethnic cleansing". "Emigration of Muslim indigenous peoples of the Caucasus" is another thing. So, dear LouisAragon, I hope you can do something about these issues. I will do my best if you need my help. Thank you in advanced.Listofpeople (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Listofpeople. Thanks for bringing this up. The thing with the article is, it refers to the whole muhajirism of Muslims from the Caucasus, but zooms in precisely on the Circassians. Therefore, we noted the South Caucasian and non-Circassian North Caucasian emigration also briefly. Also the thing with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, it was a direct following of their expansion into Persian and Turkish territory in the Caucasus. Prior to the 19th century, Russians didn't have really any strong political presence in the Caucasus at all, save for some Cossack lines, but those were far from the Turkish-Iranian border.

The consequences of the Russo-Persian War (1826-29) were huge for both Imperial Russia, Persia and the Caucasus. After that war 90% of the Caucasus was finally all came under their hegemony. The outcome/aftermath of that war and the Russo-Persian/Russo-Turkish Wars before that, are directly linked with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. In fact, when they appointed Mushthaid (Mir-Fatah-Agha) as leader of the Muslim Ulama over the region just right after the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28, the region was still maintained stable for decades. When he was told to go back by Paskevich' successors, the whole problem in the Caucasus got worse, including the rise of figures such as Imam Shamil and others. The Russian conquest itself was made possible after those Russo-Persian Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. (to a lesser extent).

If there are any more things you'd like to discuss, feel free to do so.

Regards LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

South Asia

My bad. But, the definitions need to be at once place, and not distributed all over the article. Fixing that now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. No, it's actually good like that, as putting them all at the same place will give confusion. The UN definition is the most deviating one, that's why we included it later on in the article, so people understand it's based solely for statistic purposes and nothing else. LouisAragon (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be that way. Read the last paragraph of the section:

A lack of coherent definition for South Asia has resulted in not only a lack of academic studies, but also in a lack interest for such studies. The confusion exists also because of a lack of clear boundary - geographically, geopolitical, socio-culturally, economically or historically - between South Asia and other parts of Asia, especially the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Identification with a South Asian identity was also found to be significantly low among respondents in a two-year survey across Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

All amply cited. The confusion is clearly explained, and needs no clearing up. It's covered by policy: WP:BALANCE. You can't downplay diverging views like tweaking with the layout. Regards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, in the process of straight rollbacking you had undone quite a few other edits, including text expansion and referencing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What does tweaking with the layout have to do here in this situation? It's perfectly logical to put one huge deviating definition somewhere lower in the article, as it's a very, very deviating one. It's also why the section was called additional deviating definitions. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, many editors were happy with the change made long ago. I will revert that part back to where it was. If you don't agree with the opinion of most editors of that time, bring it to the talk page.LouisAragon (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the barnstar

Dear User:LouisAragon, there does seem to be a lot of vandalism on South Asian-related articles but I'm glad that you're up for the challenge of addressing it! I'm glad you liked the barnstar! All the best, Anupam^Talk 02:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Kashmir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to the ..., 1953, p 150, Dr H. C Raychaudhuri - India; Ethnic Settlements in Ancient India: (a Study on the Puranic Lists of the ..., 1955, p 78, Dr S. B. Chaudhuri; An Analytical Study of
• ==Muslim rule: Kashmir Sultanate (1346-1586) and the Mughals (1589-==

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from Afghanistan (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This comment you made on your user talk page is completely unacceptable, and was not made better by your later alterations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An user has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beh-nam, where the user who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)