Talk:Tajiks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

About Mongolian origin of Tajiks

I visited Tajikistan as a tourist and to be honest I expected to see people with Persian appearance. Instead, I noticed that many ethnic Tajiks especially those from the Northern area of Tajikistan have profound Mongolian features. I tried to understand their ethnicity and it turned out to be that Tajiks are people with both Persian and Mongolian origins. Some pictures in Wikipedia showing Nordic children are not ethnic Tajiks but Pamir people who lived absolutely separately from ethnic Tajiks in the Pamir mountains. Unfortunately, these important facts about Mongolian origin of modern Tajiks are not provided in the Wikipedia. The Central Asia region was conquered many times from Mongolian invaders including Genghis Khan for many centuries. Mongolian people made a huge impact to all nations of Central Asia. Despite different languages, the DNA analysis shows that Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmens are much of common genetic ethnicity group. Therefore, the information in Wikipedia should be unbiased, complete and all facts about Tajiks ethnicity should be shown. Eastontraveler (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Kindly link to the academic studies you'd like to use as sources for this. Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tajiks don't have Mongolian origin, mixing with Central Asian Turkics, who are genetically largely East Asian, happened a lot in Sogdia and Bactria, thats where some East Asian influenced phenotypes come from. Nonetheless I don't see what exactly your point is, what do you want to change in the article and what exactly about the article is "biased". --Xerxes931 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I visited Tajikistan as a traveler. Before visiting I read Wikipedia about Tajiks and Tajikistan. I have been surprised that Tajik people have rather Turkic appearance. Here is a counterexample to your statement that I found from the academic source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt5hgxx8.10.pdf It says that:

"The lowland Tajiks share more physical characteristics that are stereotyped as Turkic while mountain-dwellers share fewer linguistic and physical features with Turkic peoples. A large number of the Uzbeks in Central Asia have Iranian ancestry while Tajiks who live outside the isolated mountain communities have some Turkic ancestry. In line with this description, it is noted that mixed marriages are common in Tajikistan, with the Ferghana Valley the area where mixed marriages are most common."

As I understand the Turkic physical characteristics imply Altaic features in anthropological appearance.Eastontraveler (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A tourist or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34? You sound like him. If you're him, you will get blocked soon and you know it. But I consider this new section as WP:GOODFAITH. Back to the topic: First, your personal opinion (tourism or whatever) does not matter. No WP:OR and WP:POV. What Mongolian origin? What is Mongolian about their culture or language? What you call Mongol/Mongolian is East Asian (or East Eurasian) admixture and the source of it could be from Turkic peoples, Mongols, or other East Eurasians. Persian and Mongolian origins?! You know what Iranian means in this topic? Have you heard anything about Bactrians and Sogdians? Or Iranian and Turkic states/dynasties of Central Asia before the Mongol invasion? All modern ethnic groups are mixed and ethnicity is not about look, skin color, or genetic admixture. It's about language, culture, identity and self-identification. Tajiks identify themselves as Tajik. Your linked source/PDF is OK but what you did is WP:CHERRYPICKING. It has a section named "Tajiks and Turks" (31-34) and you just cherry-picked some stuff from it. The source even talks about Uzbeks but you ignored them. Plus why just picking a specific section and ignoring the rest of that source? To use and cite that source, someone should summarize all of its content and then use it in proper sections per WP:WEIGHT. Pinging some editors who are familiar with this topic @Erminwin, Kansas Bear, Krakkos, LouisAragon, PericlesofAthens, and Wikaviani: Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man,

Thank you for WP:GOODFAITH! I am not him and I do not do anything that violates Wikipedia policy. What I wish to see in Wikipedia is objective information about Tajiks. For all your questions regarding Mongolian/Turkic/East Eurasian people, please refer to the academic sources where you can find all possible definitions and corresponding answers. There are plenty of publications in reputed academic journals showing that Tajiks are not only Persian descendants but also Mongolian/Altaic/Turkic decendants. Unfortunately, the current version of Wikipedia does not reflect this fact. You stated that all modern ethnic groups are mixed. This is absolutely correct. You also mentioned that it's about language, culture, identity and self-identification. This, of course, should be in Wikipedia. However, we should also provide information that Tajiks are not only Persian descendants but also Mongolian/Altaic/Turkic descendants! This will be OBJECTIVE information!!! If you read the entire book Tajikistan: A Political and Social History by Kirill Nourzhanov and Christian Bleuer you will find more information supporting the facts about actual Tajiks origin. Therefore, this is not a WP:CHERRYPICKING. By the way, JSTOR is a reputed academic publisher. You can find more information about Mongolian/Altaic/Turkic origins of Tajiks in many serious academic journals from Elsevier and Wiley (publisher). I hope this clarifies the subject matter.Eastontraveler (talk)

You didn't get my point and you didn't read my comment carefully. Read it again. I didn't say your source is not legit. I said the way you tried to represent it and your comments are cherry-picking + pov-pushing. And could you tell why a tourist uses outdated racialist terms and made-up stuff just like Tirgil34? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said I do not violate Wikipedia policy. Where did you see "outdated racialist terms" in my texts? Please show them! Eastontraveler (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment : So far, i have not seen any reliable source supporting that so-called Mongolian origin of Tajiks. Rather, it seems that Tajiks are mainly indo-European peoples with some Turkish admixture. Example from this source : "All the matrilineal components are assigned into the defined mtDNA haplogroups in East and West Eurasians. No basal lineages that directly emanate from the Eurasian founder macrohaplogroups M, N, and R are found. Our data support the origin of Central Asian being the result of East–West Eurasian admixture. The coalescence ages for more than 93% mtDNA lineages in Central Asians are dated after the last glacial maximum (LGM). The post-LGM and/or later dispersals/admixtures play dominant roles in shaping the maternal gene pool of Central Asians. More importantly, our analyses reveal the mtDNA heterogeneity in the Pamir highlanders, not only between the Turkic Kyrgyz and the Indo-European Tajik groups, but also among three highland Tajiks."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Pamir highlanders minority with Nordic features are not ethnic Tajiks. They may be Yaghnobi people. As I have mentioned above, you can find plenty of literature from reputed academic journals about Mongolian/Altaic/Turkic origin of Tajiks. Please refer to the reputed academic journals. The book I mentioned above with cited articles therein is a reliable source of information. Eastontraveler (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also recommend the article: "Ethnic Brother or Artificial Namesake? The Construction of Tajik Identity in Afghanistan and Tajikistan" by Ryan Brasher published in Berkeley Journal of Sociology: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23345249. Unfortunately, this article is not accessible directly. However, with JSTOR registration you can read it online for free. From this article you can find many interesting facts about Tajiks their history and ethnic identity. Therefore, the claim that Tajiks have not only Persian ancestry but also Mongolian/Altaic/Turkic ancestry is an objective fact. Please distinct the ethnic Tajiks from the ethnic minorities like Yaghnobi people who anthropologically are closer to Nordic people. Eastontraveler (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - That the Tajiks are of "Mongolian origin" is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which requires extraordinary sources. Personal traveling experiences are far from such extraordinary sources. The sources that have been provided so far provide evidence of some ethnic mixing between Tajiks and Uzbeks, but that is not sufficient evidence for a "Mongolian origin of Tajiks". Krakkos (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your statement "claim which requires extraordinary sources" is not clear. Plenty of publications with similar topics and contents are available in academic literature. These two publications are just two examples from the reputed academic sources. Therefore, this is not what you called "something extraordinary". The statement "some ethnic mixing between Tajiks and Uzbeks, but that is not sufficient evidence" looks strange. Tons of publications are available in academic literature about strong admixture of modern Tajiks and Uzbeks. This is like day and night and no any reason even to discuss about admixture of modern Tajik and Uzbeks!Eastontraveler (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment -Nourzhanov and Bleuer, both academics in the field of Islamic studies, except their paper is not about Islamic studies. They mention Samanids, yet fail to explain how Tajiks(that existed before the time of the Samanids) have a Mongol origin. Even stating, on page 32, "Some experts believe that only ‘the vast, sudden incursion by pagan Mongols in the mid-thirteenth century’ (and their Turkic allies) broke the routine.."(mid 13th cent.), and "however, the population of sedentary Central Asia has been intermixed for so long that it is impossible to accurately distinguish Tajiks from Uzbeks on physical appearance (phenotype) alone.."(no date given). This information is a far cry from proving the Tajiks have a multi-ethnic "origin". Considering Tajiks existed prior to the formation of the Samanid Empire c.800 and the Mongol invasion occurs in the mid-thirteenth century, I think stating Tajiks have a Mongol origin is chronologically impossible. Brasher is a political scientist and his paper has more to do with nationalistic tendencies and modern studies(1960), and fails to answer how Tajiks could have a Mongol origin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that background matters. However, if you are able to publish your article in a reputed academic journal it matters more. In regards to Islamic Studies, this may be just one of the topics they currently (or previously) study. For instance, a University Prof. may have several Master/PhD students with speciffic topics. It means that as a Supervisor he specializes on several fields. Therefore, one should not understand it literally that a single topic is the only their specialization. I found a very interesting article "Manipulating the Census: Ethnic Minorities in the Nationalizing States of Central Asia" by Olivier Ferrando: https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990802080737 . It shows that since collapse of USSR the percentage of Uzbeks declining at highest rate while percentage of Tajiks increasing suspiciously proportionally. According to Demographics of Tajikistan in 1989 there were 23.5% Uzbeks and 62.3% of Tajiks. However, in 2010 we see that Uzbek percentage of population decreased to 13.8% while population of Tajiks proportionally increased to 84.3%. By extrapolation we can estimate that now in 2020 there should be about 7% of Uzbeks. At the same time we may notice that proportion of other nationalities, except Russians and Tatars who migrated to Russia and Crimea, remain relatively stable. Where are Uzbeks? We should expect more than 2 millions of Uzbeks instead of 1 million of Uzbeks. Did Uzbeks migrate to Uzbekistan or did Uzbeks have only one child or no child in a family? No, Uzbeks did not migrate and traditionally Uzbeks also have many children in each family. The answer is that many Uzbeks are now identify themselves as Tajiks. Therefore, since 1989 a huge number, possibly more than a million, of ethnic Uzbeks are assimilated. This is another fact about ethnicity of the modern Tajiks. The first column in the Table "Population of Tajikistan according to ethnic group 1926–2010" is messed up. Number of Yaghnobi people minority, who are not ethnic Tajiks, are "added" to total number of Tajiks. A lot of mysteries in the census Demographics of Tajikistan, isn't it? Eastontraveler (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have chosen to ignore what I said. Ok. Mongols do not arrive in Central Asia until mid 13th century, which eliminates them as being an ethnic origin for the Tajiks. Neither of your sources state when Uzbeks arrive or give any information that Tajiks have Uzbek origins. Unless you have something productive to state, do not waste our time with paragraph long rants that have zero to do with Tajik origins that pre-date c.800.

I did not ignore what you said. "Pre-date c.800" is not about modern Tajiks. I am saying that origin of the modern Tajiks are not only Persian descendants! Eastontraveler (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• "It shows that since collapse of USSR the percentage of Uzbeks declining at highest rate while percentage of Tajiks increasing suspiciously proportionally."

After 1989 many Uzbeks assimilated and identify themselves as Tajiks. See the table showing statistics and the paper from reputed journal I mentioned above. Eastontraveler (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with the origins of the Tajiks.

I am talking about origin of Tajiks in general. If you see my texts above I said that modern Tajiks are not only Persians. They are admixture of Persians and Turkic ethnic groups. From the very beginning I never mentioned about ancient Tajiks that "pre-date c.800". I could not visit Tajikistan during "pre-date c.800". Please do not change the current topic! Eastontraveler (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I would suggest not using a paper written by professors of Islamic studies, that brought up Samanids to begin with, and desperately try to tie any and every group of people that have passed through Tajikistan(et.al) to Tajiks!? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• "I agree that background matters. However, if you are able to publish your article in a reputed academic journal it matters more. In regards to Islamic Studies, this may be just one of the topics they currently (or previously) study. For instance, a University Prof. may have several Master/PhD students with speciffic topics. It means that as a Supervisor he specializes on several fields. Therefore, one should not understand it literally that a single topic is the only their specialization."

This is sheer speculation on your part. They are both professors of Islamic studies and the paper they wrote has nothing to do with Islamic studies. End of story. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering why you call this a "sheer speculation". Each University Prof. may have current or past research interests and their specializations are not a single topic. This is normal in academic community in European, Australian and American Universities. We should discuss about serious contradictions in the Wikipedia instead. Eastontraveler (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have no proof these professors of Islamic studies have any specialization in Ethnic studies. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you understand a specialization? Your publications reflect your specializations. If you do some research in some field and are able to publish it in a reputed journal, which implies a high quality of your work, you are researcher and therefore a specialist in that field. Eastontraveler (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear, May I ask you a question? Do you deny that modern Tajiks are Persian and Turkic admixture? Eastontraveler (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no contradictions in the Wikipedia, all i see here is an editor refusing to get the point. As Kansas Bear told you, it is mathematically impossible for Tajiks to be of Mongolian descent just because 1200 > 800. Please drop the stick and move forward.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for using math example! Mathematics uses strict logic and does not accept any false or gap in a proof. And logic says that because modern Tajiks are of Persian and Turkic admixture (mostly with Uzbeks), they must have Mongolian genes as Turkic nations are Altaic descendants. This completes the proof. If you see any false or gap in this proof, please show it. If you claim otherwise, you will be caught on a contradiction! Eastontraveler (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, Two nations Tajiks and Uzbeks lived together for many centuries with same culture, same clothes, same cuisine and same traditions. They used both languages, Tajik (Persian) and Uzbek (Turkic), in communications. These two nations have very similar mentality and because of that they always had (and still have) mixed marriages throughout the centuries. It is impossible to exclude Uzbeks from the history of Tajiks and Tajiks from the history of Uzbeks. Therefore, one should not deny Turkic/Altaic/Mongolian factor neither in the history of Tajiks nor in their genes. Eastontraveler (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not how we work here. You need WP:RS for every one of your claims. You should either find and provide some sources by some experts (Iranologist, Turkologist, or a historian with Central Asian expertise) OR drop your stick. We can't add opinions of some non-experts or random authors to this article. Your source fails reliability criteria for this topic. We Wikipedians are not allowed to spam WP articles with random stuff and unreliable/disruptive content. And WP is not a blog/forum. Avoid turning this talk page into your personal blog or a forum thread; see WP:FORUM. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wario-Man, Thank you for your answer and explanation of how it works. I knew that it will not be easy to convince people to reconsider stereotyped misconception about "pure" Persian origin of the modern Tajiks that totally ignores Turkic factor although it contradicts elementary logic. Anyway... . You have said above that I used "outdated racialist terms" and I asked you to show them. Being visual minority myself I am against racisms in all its forms. Therefore it was very unpleasant to read that I used "outdated racialist terms". Unfortunately, you still did not answer my question. Could you please show any evidence where in my texts I used "outdated racialist terms"? Eastontraveler (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment : I suggest that we ignore Eastontraveler per WP:DENY, as they don't sound like an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia. Let's move on gentlemen. As far as i'm concerned, i'm done here with this issue. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote your point of mathematical impossibility of Mongolian origin of Tajiks although you contradict to yourself by mentioning that Tajiks are Persian and Turkic admixture. I replied to your point using Mathematical logic. I expected you would discuss more. Suddenly you decided to cease the discussion. I may be wrong, but my feeling that you have no arguments against this elementary logic. Anyway, thank you for your math discussion. Eastontraveler (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific DNA evidence: Here is the article "Mitochondrial DNA variation in Tajiks living in Tajikistan" by Igor V. Ovchinnikov, Mathew J. Malek, Kenneth Drees, Olga I. Kholina published few years ago in Legal Medicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.07.009. This article says that modern Tajiks have 62.6% Western Eurasian haplogroups and 26.4% Eastern Eurasian haplogroups. Tajiks also have 9.9% of South Asian and 1.1% of African haplotypes. Eastern Eurasian people are Altaic, Mongolian, Chinese, etc. people. 26.4% is a very large percentage and much bigger than I expected. This DNA data is a scientific evidence proving that the modern Tajiks are Mongolian descendants too. Eastontraveler (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No one denies Tajiks having Eastern Eurasian admixture in them too, however it’s very far from being the majority of their genetics and again even that predates the Mongol invasion, East Eurasian isn’t only Mongol. Mixing with Turkics in Sogdia occured already long before the Mongols arrived. Pashtuns also have some Indian subcontinent related DNA, only slightly less than Tajiks have East Asian, does that mean we should classify Pashtuns as Indians from now on ? The vast majority of Tajik and Pashtun genetic admix is what used to be called “Caucasoid”. In addition to that, as the others already stated above, it’s mainly about culture, linguistics and self-identification. Also you didn’t provide a source explicitly saying “Tajiks have Mongol origin”. --Xerxes931 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation about Turkic admixture contradicts Genetics and Genomics because Turks themselves are admixture of Caucasians and Mongolians. It has no meaning to say that Turks are admixture of Caucasians and Turks. Genetics and Genomics, which are modern sciences, explicitly define Eastern Eurasian people as people of Mongolian race. Please refer to literature on Genetics and Genomics about definition for the Eastern Eurasian people to avoid speculations. One should be objective. Wikipedia photos show misleading Nordic type of people. However when you visit Tajikistan you can see people with rather dark skin and Turkic features which look like very much Uzbeks and Turkmens. 26.4% Eastern Eurasian haplogroups in Tajiks genome a very big number, which cannot be ignored. I should say 26.4% is in average. In Northern areas of Tajikistan this percentage can be much bigger. Near the border with Kyrgyzstan you can often see Tajik people with explicit Mongolian features and they look like local Kyrgyz people. Eastontraveler (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how genetics work, a Haplogroup does not determine what someone looks like, it's the autosomal DNA that does if anything. Thus you using 26.4% Eastern Eurasian mtDNA among Tajiks as an argument for their phenotypes is nonsense. I am not going to engage in this anymore, since no one here is agreeing with you anyways the changes are not going to happen either way. --Xerxes931 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Again complete contradiction. Where did 26.4% of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups in the modern Tajiks genome come from? Did 26.4% of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups come from Caucasians? Of course not! 26.4% of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups in the modern Tajiks genome must be from the Mongolian ancestors only! Otherwise this percentage could be called Western Eurasian haplogroups. Contradiction again... Ok, leave the discussion if you want. You will not be able to give any logically sound argument against this scientific fact anyway. Eastontraveler (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

--Zafarella (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Hello dear reader/adience. I'm am native tajik person. I would like to clarify few items here as origins of the tajik. Unfortunately there are no good online resources to cite my statements, neither correct translation and sources, but in summary here is what I know from university/school/etc:

• Tajiks/Tojiks are not Mongolian! Do not insult this nation by this kind of statements.
• The only mongolian person history knows was Tamerlan - his grave is n Samarqand nowadays Uzbekistan.
• Correct and native pronounciation of the Tajik is incorrect due to Russian invasions in early 20 centory
• Correct in native language spelling is Tojik - toj - crown - a person wearing a crown.
• Who you will see in todays Tajikistan are not really the tajik people. They are mostly orfans from villeges. Many tajiks left country in late 80's 90's.
• Tajiks are not Iranian, please do not confuse. Even from religious point of view iranians are shia, tojiks are sunni.
• Some known tajiks are Avicenna, Al-Khorazmi - algorithms word, Al-beruni, Al-Bukhori, Umar Khayam.
• The capital of the tajik nation is Bukhara not dushanbe/Tajikistan

Hi Zafarella,

Let me answer some of your comments.

Tajiks/Tojiks are not Mongolian! Do not insult this nation by this kind of statements

It is not an insultation to say that modern Tajiks are admixture of Iranian and Mongolian people. This fact is confirmed by DNA test. Modern Tajiks are descendants of Mongolians too, which is clearly evident by a very high level 26.4% of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups in their genes. Everyone must accept this fact. See the article "Mitochondrial DNA variation in Tajiks living in Tajikistan" by Igor V. Ovchinnikov, Mathew J. Malek, Kenneth Drees, Olga I. Kholina https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.07.009 as a solid proof.

Who you will see in todays Tajikistan are not really the tajik people

As I said, people with profound Mongolian features in Tajikistan also identify themselves as native Tajiks. Therefore they are Tajiks. It is their right to identify themselves as they wish.

Tajiks are not Iranian, please do not confuse.

I have never said this nonsense.

Some known tajiks are Avicenna, Al-Khorazmi - algorithms word, Al-beruni, Al-Bukhori, Umar Khayam.

This is a nonsense again. Writing in Dari/Farsi dialects does not mean that these people should automatically be identified as Tajiks. No any proofs showing that these historical people identify themselves as ethnic Tajiks. For example, many of the urban Hazaras in the larger cities of Afghanistan such as Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif predominantly speak Dari, but it does not mean that they are ethnic Tajiks of course. But I am not going to argue about it as it is out of topic. My objective is to show that Wikipedia is incorrect by stating that Tajiks are descendants of Iranians only. Modern Tajiks are descendants of Mongolians too and one should recognize and respect the Mongolian heritage of Tajiks.

The capital of the tajik nation is Bukhara not dushanbe/tajikistan.

This is another nonsense. Please open Bukhara and read about its geographical location. Again, I don't want to discuss about it as it is out of topic in this section.Eastontraveler (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Eastontraveler, you may want to read some scientific articles on the genetic admixture of Turks in Anatolia, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia. You may be surprised to learn that they're more non-Turkic than Tajiks are East Eurasian. However, I assume that you don't want these people to be labeled as anything other than Turkic? Armanqur (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not true

Tajiks are from Tajikistan not Iran Me123446 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they are from Iran. Jeppiz (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading picture

There might be many Uzbeks in the picture posted by Ilhoms in the "Tajiks" article https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Happy_Tajik_children.jpg People in that picture does not represent the typical phenotype of the Tajik people, especially of Tajiks from Afghanistan. Uzbeks are 13,8% of Tajikistan's population and they dress the same way as Tajiks, but have different phenotype. I recommend deleting the misleading picture by Ilhoms and using different picture for the "Tajiks" article. This picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tajik_people.jpg or this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tajik_women.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwxp (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES for the first, second is of poor quality. Granted, the current image isn't great either composition-wise; you're free to find another. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 04 May 2022

Please include this new study into the section "genetics":

An autosomal DNA study by Guarino-Vignon et al. 2022, revealed that modern Tajiks show genetic continuity with ancient samples from Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. The genetic ancestry of Tajiks consists largely of a West-Eurasian component (~74%), an East Asian-related component (~18%), and a South Asian component samplified by Great Andamanese (~8%). According to the authors, the South Asian (Great Andamanese) affinity of Tajiks was previously unreported, although evidence for the presence of a deep South Asian ancestry was already found previously in other Central Asian samples (eg. among modern Turkmens and historical Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex samples). Both historical and more recent geneflow (~1500 years ago) shaped the genetic makeup of Southern Central Asian populations, such as the Tajiks.

Thank you!-37.252.5.126 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Cite problem of the 2019 paper

I have cited a 2019 paper with the following quote:

Seven groups (Iranian Arabs, Azeris, Gilaks, Kurds, Mazanderanis, Lurs and Persians) strongly overlapped in their overall autosomal diversity in an MDS analysis (Fig 1B), suggesting the existence of a Central Iranian Cluster (CIC), notably also including Iranian Arabs and Azeris. On a global scale (Fig 2 including “Old World” populations only; see S2 Fig for all 1000G populations), CIC Iranians closely clustered with Europeans, while Iranian Turkmen showed similar yet distinct degrees of admixture compared to other South Asians. A local comparison corroborated the distinct genetic diversity of CIC Iranians relative to other geographically close populations [2, 6, 44] (Fig 3 and S3 Fig). Still, genetic substructure was much smaller among Iranian groups than in relation to any of the 1000G populations, supporting the view that the CIC groups form a distinct genetic entity, despite internal heterogeneity. European (FST~0.0105–0.0294), South Asians (FST~0.0141–0.0338), but also some Latin American populations (Puerto Ricans: FST~0.0153–0.0228; Colombians: FST~0.0170–0.0261) were closest to Iranians, whereas Sub-Saharan Africans and admixed Afro-Americans (FST~0.0764–0.1424) as well as East Asians (FST ~ 0.0645–0.1055) showed large degrees of differentiation with Iranians.

From [[1]].

However it does indeed not mention Tajiks as far as I can tell, thus being unrelated to the main topic. Can it still be included as additional information or should it be moved elsewhere?BaiulyQz (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, where does it mention Pashtuns? Or Indians? It seems the entire paper only concerns the ethnic groups of Iran, not those outside of it. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

True, I did not properly check it, it does indeed only mention ethnic groups within Iran. I will fix it respectively. Thank you for pointing that out.BaiulyQz (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, who are the "certain South Asians" mentioned here?[2] If Parsis are meant, this should be specifically mentioned in order to avoid confusion, rather than "certain South Asians (Indians)". Parsis are like 0,00000000000001% (or something) of the total Indian population, and they are, unsurprisingly, of Iranian origin. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Done so, do you see further inconsistencies?BaiulyQz (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022

Change on the first line "Tajiks are a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group native to Central Asia" to "Tajiks are a Persian-speaking Turco-Persian ethnic group native to Central Asia". Armigeri (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Add "Herat," "Balkh," and "Ghazni" to list of Tajik cities 2A00:23C7:5983:B501:D8B4:EF8E:911D:BF84 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Are RS required for common knowledge? There is an on-going war, and propaganda against Tajiks in northeastern Afghanistn is common while the Taliban ethnically cleanse the area of the indigenous population. What is exactly the rules re: common knowledge -- the cities of Herat, Balkh, Kabul, and Ghazani are listed at another part of the article re: the Tajik's homeland? Jazak allah khair HistoryOfArabsAndTajiks (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tajiks derives from Tajirs meaning traders

The word Tajik derives from the word Tajirs meaning traders. Thousands of Arabs were on the Silk Road traveling between Arabia and China and most have settled at the gates of common China currently called Tajikistan. The land was known as tajiristan the land of traders, from which they moved their goods across the continent to major cities east and south. Recent DNA traits links these people to the Arab tribes and no to Persians as dictated by the Iranian government. The language is a complete different story, fari is a beautiful language easy to learn and is preferred by all peoples of Central Asia. Farsi/Dari/Tajiki are different dialect spoken by different peoples of the lands. The most commonly used words for food, relationships and basic communication are completely different in each region proving they have adopted the language and Farsi is not their native tongue. 139.104.2.221 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we go by sources, and not by what users claim.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Misleading arguments

@Hunan201p:, why do you revert back to a obviously not verified version. Your version makes arguments of 18% East Asian ancestry among Tajiks. This is not stated by the paper at all. The papers main argument is continuity between "Iron Age Indo-Iranians" of Central Asia, and modern day Tajiks. The current version can not be "verified by two editors", while at the same time having these inconsistencies and having been written by an blocked editor (Baiuly).

Finally, the Tajiks present a small proportion (4%) of modern East Asian ancestry (pink component, maximized in the Han population).

So much to the claimed "18% East Asian ancestry"... Would you please clarify? Regards. Orange172212 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For the following reasons, the current version is nothing but made up:

Extended content

Our research provides insight into the history of Indo-Iranians by using evidence to trace modern populations back to the Iron Age in southern Central Asia. As proposed by former genetic studies2,11 and as supported by historical56 and archaeological evidence57, we found that Indo-Iranian speakers settled in Central Asia long before Turko-Mongol speakers11. The main event at the bottom of Indo-Iranian ancestry in southern Central Asia occurred at the end of the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, through the admixture between local BMAC groups and Andronovo-related populations perhaps linked to the end of the Oxus Civilization. We note here that the steppe group who admixed with BMAC did not present East Asian ancestry, which is consistent with both the archeological58 and genetic38 findings of the East Asian ancestry arriving in the Central steppe core only at the end of the Iron Age. The populations falling under the name Andronovo form a complex group. Indeed, when screening the individuals used under the label Andronovo in our dataset, we note that they all belong to one site, Kytmanovo52,59, which is eastward, but show a genetic profile very close to the Sintashta individuals, whose area expanded near the Caspian Sea. Individuals from other cultures belonging to the Andronovo complex have been sequenced17,18 but overall they form a moderately heterogenous genetic group. Moreover, some studies have shown that Steppe groups can be labelled similarly but be different genetically, such as, for instance, Srubnaya Alakulskaya individuals being closer to Andronovo individuals than to Srubnaya from the Samara region28. The nomadic populations from the end of the Bronze and Iron Age being very genetically heterogenous, we suspect that the source of the Western steppe ancestry found in Iron Age southern Central Asia may not be sampled yet. It is interesting to notice that the gene flow between the Steppe and southern Central Asia went two-ways38,60. A recent study60 has highlighted that a gene flow from BMAC contributed to the genetic formation of Scythians. Our findings combined with these studies strongly corroborate the hypothesis based on archaeological evidence that southern Central Asia civilizations since BMAC and Western steppe culture had a strong cultural connection6,8,61,62,63,64. Overall, we demonstrate here a remarkable example of genetic continuity since the Iron Age in Indo-Iranian populations from Central Asia despite the frenzy of population migrations in the area since the Bronze Age. Similar to Zhabagin et al. work65, the present study shows no impact of the Arab cultural expansion in Central Asia on the Indo-Iranian speaker’s genetic diversity, despite the first one leading to a shift in language for Tajiks. We also do not see a gene flow from Iran despite the Persian cultural expansion which led to a language shift from an east-Iranian language to a west-Iranian in Tajiks—when Yaghnobis kept their east-Iranian language66. Yaghnobis, for their pair, are characterized by strong genetic stability over time (small amount of negative admixture f3-statistics, fewer significative D-statistics), which can be linked back to their long-term isolation12,67. Yaghnobis are indeed an isolated ethno-linguistic population historically present in the hardly accessible valley of the Yaghnob River. Evidence suggests that the separation between Yaghnobis and Tajiks occurred at least 1000 years ago, which explains the high genetic differentiation observed in Indo-Iranians by previous studies53,67. Interestingly, it implies that Yaghnobis could represent a good proxy for the ancestry present in Central Asia before the migration waves that led to the current genetic diversity, despite the strong drift that occurred. The amount of East-Asian ancestry due to admixture with modern Turko-Mongol groups remains low even in Tajiks, consistent with the findings of Martinez-Cruz et al.2, who observed the light impact the westward invasions (Huns, Mongols) had on Indo-Iranian groups in Central Asia. On the other hand, we have highlighted for Yaghnobis, Tajiks, and Turkmens a small amount of gene flow from BHG-ancestry dating to around 1000 years ago, suggesting a recent wave of westward migration from the Altai mountains, after the Iron Age. This recent wave can be linked to the origin of the Turko-Mongol in Central Asia which has been demonstrated by Martinez-Cruz et al.2 and Li et al.68 to be from an ancestral group of Turkic speakers from the Altai region. Our quite recent date of admixture differs significantly from the date obtained by Palstra et al.11 which placed the admixture event back to 8 ky BP for Tajiks and 2.3 ky BP for Kyrgyz. The more recent inferred dates of admixture for Tajiks compared to Yaghnobis could be explained by the fact that Tajiks received a more continuous gene flow from the eastward source, continuous gene flow that occurred after the first admixture event that formed the Yaghnobis genetic composition. Indeed, the qpAdm method cannot detect a continuous admixture which can be expected in this context. Furthermore, the search of their ancestry confirms a genetic homogeneity within Yaghnobis, Tajiks, and Turkmens, despite their cultural, notably linguistic differences, with some genetic differences emerging from various patterns of gene flow in Tajiks and Turkmens. Notably, we evidenced an admixture event from South Asia restricted to the Tajik population, undocumented before despite evidence in Iranian Turkmens69. According to previous archaeological studies70,71, multidirectional cultural exchanges with South Asia are known to have taken place as early as the Chalcolithic period: notably from Sialk culture and other Iranian cultures towards Balochistan70 or from Geoksjur culture of Turkmenistan to southern Afghanistan. In the opposite direction, from south to north, Mundigak III type ceramics find parallels as far as Badakhshan in northeast Afghanistan, material from Balochistan and shells used in necklaces and bracelets from the Arabian Sea are found at the Sarazm site in Tajikistan, showing a long-distance commercial exchange. All these ancient populations were on the move with probably quite frequent exchanges and cultural blends between populations, Iron Age included71. Intriguingly, genetic proximity between southern Central Asian and South Asian groups has already been suggested for BMAC samples18 and raises the question of the timing of this gene flow. Two models can be considered: the first one assumes the formation of a homogeneous basal Indo-Iranian background (as observed today in Yaghnobis) and subsequent recent gene flow from South Asian populations; the second model acknowledges the presence of South Asian ancestry in some Bronze Age BMAC samples18 and suggests Tajiks and Yaghnobis could have derived from distinct BMAC populations, respectively with and without South Asian ancestry, who have both experienced independent admixture with Andronovo-like steppe populations during Iron Age, and eastern nomads with BHG ancestry afterwards. Because the date of the gene-flow from South Asian populations in Tajik genomes is relatively recent, the data favours the first hypothesis; however, uncertainties on the model of admixture (one versus several pulses) may be compatible with continuous gene-flow since the Bronze Age. Additionally, our recent date of admixture fits with the arrival of the South Asian ancestry at the same that the shift from east to west-Iranian language in Tajiks linked to the Persian expansion 1500 years ago66. Lastly, the case of Turkmens is a notable example of a population changing language and cultural practices without substantial changes in their genetic ancestry. Indeed, Turkic-speaking peoples found in all Eurasia are the result of several nomadic migrations14,72, which cover an area ranging from Siberia to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, through Central Asia and have been occurring during a wide period, the 5th–16th centuries14. In regions other than Central Asia, several studies have shown that Turkic-speaking peoples genetically resemble their geographic neighbours, with no clear genetic signal that would distinguish them14,72. This lends to support the model of a language replacement by elite-dominance rather than by demic diffusion for languages of the Turkish family expansion72. Turkmens fit in this global model but are an exception in their region. Indeed, the other Turkic-speaking populations, like Kyrgyz or Kazakhs, show a different genetic profile with a clear dominant East Asian and Baikal components, attesting to a more significant admixture with nomads from South-Siberia and Mongolia, which have been dated around the tenth-fourteenth centuries14. The small amount of East Asian ancestry in Turkmens has been linked to an admixture dated around the 15th century, so slightly after the first admixture in Central Asia, and may come from gene flow with these Turco-Mongol groups. The question of the diffusion of Indo-European languages has been a hot topic in the last few years23,52,73,74,75. Linguistic analyses point either to Anatolia74 or the Pontic Steppe75 as the region where the Indo-European languages originated. The expansion of Yamnaya related populations westward during the late Neolithic, and eastward during the Bronze Age, through the migration of Andronovo groups, suggests that they were speakers of such languages. Interestingly, the ancestry pattern found in Indo-Iranian speakers from Central Asia is not found in other Indo-Iranian speaking populations, namely, the Iranians Persians69. This ethnic group displays a genetic continuity since the Bronze Age with ancient individuals from Iran, with limited gene flow from the steppes (either Central or Eastern)69. Furthermore, our study of the Turkmen population presents another example where language and genetics do not match, questioning the idea of inferring language displacement using population movement. Their genetic affiliation to modern western Eurasian populations, seen in earlier studies, is due to a common steppe ancestry. Our results bring to light that for Indo-Iranian speakers various patterns of genetic and linguistic continuity or discontinuity coexisted through time. In southern Central Asia, we show that the actual Indo-Iranians are the product of a long-term continuity since the Iron Age with only limited recent impulses from other Eurasian groups. Our results provide further evidence that the demography of this region is complex and needs small-scale studies like this one to be fully understood. From this perspective, the precise timing of these impulses cannot be solved until more genetic data from samples from the Iron Age and historical times, who do not belong to the Steppe cultural complex, have been obtained.

In this regard, the current version is a farce, there is no mention of 18% East Asian or 8% Jarawa/Andamanese ancestry! The study does not even mention the words "Jarawa" or "Andamanese"... Orange172212 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are the one reverting the article to the version made by BaiulyQz, a sockpuppet of WorldCreaterFighter. The version of the article I am restoring was authored by LouisAragon, not a sockpuppet.

You forgot to add the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, which says:

In addition, a fourth component maximized in Baikal Hunter-Gatherers (BHG: Shamanka_EN) and largely present in all modern Turko-Mongol populations (red; 50% on average) is also inferred to a lower extent in the modern Indo-Iranian populations, with a significantly smaller proportion in Yaghnobis than in Tajiks (mean value respectively 7% and 14%

So in addition to having 4% modern East Asian ancestry, Tajiks have 14% admixture from East Asian Baikal Hunter Gatherers. It's easy to see how LouisAragon added 14 + 4 to get 18%. Which means you're either suffering from competence issues or deliberately making "misleading arguments". Honestly not even sure what it is these days. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p:See the above quotes; the Baikal hunter-gatherer component is obviously not identical with East Asian, henceforth making statements of 18% East Asian ancestry is a farce. It state 4% East Asian and 14% Baikal HG, which did not cluster with the East Asian proxy Han at all, but was itself shifted westwards. I suggest reading the paper and the provided figures there.

Next, the South Asian ancestry is not defined as Andamanese, Onge, or Jarawa, but simply as "South Asian". This is misleading, and in the edit history, I see no edits on that being made by LouisAragon. The main arguments of the study is continuity to Indo-Iranians of the Iron Age, with only minor geneflow. We should stick to the discussion/conclusions by the paper and not personal interpretations!Orange172212 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there is nothing in any of the above quotes that supports your assertion. LouisAragon reviewed your edits back in 2022 back when you were BaiulyQz, and came to the same conclusions I have. LouisAragon's version of the article is accurate, yours is the fake version. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: A simple task for verification, search for the words Andamanese or Onge or Jarawa, not mentioned in the paper, henceforth misleading... per logic, we would have to write 14% Baikal HG, 4% East Asian, and 8% South Asian. Not 18% East Asian and 8% Andamanese!!! Furthermore, it was on the demand of a blocked user who requested this misleading paragraph, and it has been introduced without verification, and until now simply kept, caused by back and forth editing of blocked user(s): It was originally orchestrated and requested at the talk page by an blocked IP:. That is clear..

@LouisAragon:. Orange172212 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are simply lying. The study makes very clear they used an Andamanese Islander, the ~15.9× genome from a ~19th-century Andaman islander, used as a proxy for Australasian ancestry in models involving admixture into NAs from Moreno-Mayar 2018 et al. as the proxy for the South Asian ancestry in Tajiks:

To model Tajiks, all 2-ways admixture models were excluded and we obtained one 3-ways admixture model ... implying around 17% ancestry from XiongNu, almost 75% ancestry from Turkmenistan_IA, and around 8% ancestry from a South Asian individual (Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP) representing a deep ancestry in South Asia.

The summary of the paper approved by Louis is encyclopedic enough, your proposed edits are too WP:INDISCRIMINATE and don't make any sense. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Afghanistan

Afghanistan 119.160.67.140 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

There are some minor English grammatical errors across the page, I would like to correct them. For example, "Tajiks celebrates Mehregan in Dushanbe park" should be corrected to "Tajiks celebrate Mehregan in Dushanbe park". Peppinopicante (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done though I changed it to "celebrating" rather than "celebrate". M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

I want to edit the Tajik page because I have many different things I want to write about. For example I want to write about the Tajiks of Iran and how they compose 36% of the afghan citizens who live in Iran. I also want to write about their history such as the ghurids kartids and samanids. I’m a Tajik myself and I’m well educated on my culture. Please give me permission to edit this page. 94.137.98.69 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

Tajik in my opinion is combination of тощий and adjective suffix "ic" that is common between english and persian languages. тощий means skinny.previously I found that fars (persian) in another language is slim or thin and turk is широк or wide and lor is in pashtoon tall. there is a concordance between these names and their meanings. this is not a quote. Amir Arab 194.86.153.167 (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)