|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Persian culture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A summary of this article appears in Persianization.|
|A summary of this article appears in Persianate society.|
- it appears that we do not actually have a standalone article on this otherwise, but I located two articles which treat the subject in a section. --dab (𒁳) 16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
P N Oak
Why in the heck is there a huge section on P N Oak who is on the extreme fringe of historical writing and only distantly related to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed all such references to P N Oak's work as it is pseudohistorical and has no veracity, now the article should read better without the section.
Change of title and topic
reaming this to "Indo-Persian literature" and changing the article to fit isn't something that should be done without a great deal of discussion — it involves a change, not merely to what's said, but to the subject of the article. Please propose the change here first. (Why not create a new article if you think that one is needed?) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Indo-Persian culture shouled be changed to Indo-Iranic culture (not Iranian culture - Iranian culture is only a word for the iranic culture of various Iranic people of modern Iran, mostly synonym for Persians of Iran) since most people still belive modernday Iran was old Persia, falsefully. Persia was a very large area that streched from Anatolia and the Balkan region to NW-India. The Persian culture that came to India had it´s root in central Asia, in the ancient country that once was called (Greater) Khorasan(modern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan...). The description self is wrong. Iranic people have Iranic culture and have not adoptet Iranian´s culture. From the age of the avestan periode till today most Iranic people have still the same culture and language, particularely the Persians and their sub-groups (Tajiks, Talish people, Tats). Non-Persians but Iranic people like Kurds or Balochs haven´t the same language but the same culture and that is why I ask you to change the title to Indo-Iranic culture because Indian muslims in northern and central India and Pakistanis along with various modern Turkic states in central Asia and beyong share the same culture with the Iranic (Indo-European) population of central Asia, Iran and Iraq.
- Lots of things you're getting totally wrong here. Persia is only a small region in the south of the modern state Iran; don't confuse it with Greater Iran. The province of Persia is also the place of origin of the (Old) Persian language. Only New Persian does originate further to the northeast, in Transoxania and (Greater) Khorasan, chiefly under the Samanids. Talysh is a Northwestern Iranian language, not Persian at all. The usual linguistic term is Iranian, not Iranic. The Indo-Persian culture is not about Balochi or Kurds, nor about the Balochi language or Kurdish; it's exclusively about the Persian language and the associated Islamic cultural tradition, not Iranian languages and cultures in general, non-Persian Iranian influence on Indian languages and cultures in general being negligible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Lack of support
This article reads like a personal reflection and essay. It needs citations. The citations given are poor quality and do not support the content at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Lack of inline citations =/= WP:OR. I didn't spot anything that I'd qualify as "OR". Hence I removed that particular tag, as it was placed without justification. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Persian-only POV and poorly referenced
This arcticle has few major problems:
- POV: as pointed out by the previous use in 2013, the problem still persists in 2017, that this is written like a personal reflection (POV) mainly with persian slant (only persian culture influenced indian culture), there is little suggest the BALANCED content of bidirectional interaction and development of local culture. For example, the base of Urdu is still local Indian language Khadi boli that originated from Sanskrit, on top of that Kahdi boli base though Hindi has more sanskrit influence and urdu as "COMPARATIVELY ONLY" (to Hindi, but base still largely remains Sanskrit-origin Khari boli). Remember urdu may
- Original research and heavy bias e.g. article had this UNI-DIRECTIONAL definition of "indo-poersian culture" "Indo-Persian culture" refers to those Persian aspects that have been integrated into or absorbed into the cultures of the Indian Subcontinent (hence the prefix "Indo"), and in particular, into North India, and modern-day Pakistan. and I have changed it to "Indo-Persian culture refers to the bi-directional interaction and mutual influence of Indian culture and Persian culture leading to the evolution of distinct amalgamated aspects, which in turn also influenced both Indian and Persian cultures, influence of which can be seen in the cultures of the Indian Subcontinent (hence the prefix "Indo", and in particular, into North India, and modern-day Pakistan) and Iran.
- Poorly referenced: The whole article is so poorly referenced, that the bulk of article is screaming to be reverted. hardly anything stated in the article is substantiated with verifiable reputed balanced references.
I want to see a BALANCED article, not the nationalistic biased leaning of people trying to impose certain slant on the culture. Please help me improve with more references and BALANCED BIDIRECTIONAL CULTURAL EXCHANGE views. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)