Jump to content

User talk:Tajik/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Regarding Pashtun population figures

Just to clarify where the figures are derived. The census in Pakistan says 15.42% which is multiplied by 165 mil. gives roughly 25.5. Then there, at least, 2.5 mil. Pashtun refugees and their descendents from Afghanistan. Add to this census problems as with counting women who are kept in seclusion as well. The 40-50 mil. is derived from Ethnologue so 35 mil. would be grossly an undercount. The minimum is 40 mil. Tombseye 04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue is an extremely uncertain source ... they have been criticized many many times! As for the number of refugees in Pakistan: the total number is something between 2-4 million, maybe 70% are ethnic Pashtuns ... so, the number is something around 3 million. The total number of Pashtuns in Afghanistan is unknown ... something between 10 and 13 million seems to be a good guess. The population of Pakistan is 162,419,946 (July 2005 est.), Pashtuns are ~15% (while the number of Pashto-speakers is ~8%!) [1]. So, 15% of 162.4m is less than 25m. 25m (Pakistan) + 2-3m (refugees from Afghanistan) + 10-13m (Afghahnistan) + 1m (rest) = 38-42million ... in any case, 50million is TOTALLY exeggerated!
Just a comparison: ethnic Persians in Iran are only 35-40 million. Even if you add ethnic Tajiks to that number, they are still less than 60 million. Considering the cultural and linguistic importance of Persian language and culture throughout history in the region, "50m+ Pashtuns" looks really unconvincing to me. Tajik 07:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the CIA you quote is wrong. The figures I quoted are from Pakistan's census. It's NOT a count of Pashtuns, but of Pashto speakers who are at 15.42%. Next, Ethnologue's 50 mil. may be too high, but it's definitely at 40+ according to the aggregate data. Also, the refugees have had children at any rate, but regardless, the Pashtuns who SPEAK Pashto do number 40 mil. according tothe data. Hope that clears things up. Tombseye 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, adjusted the Afghan Pashtun population to 12.5 mil. as a rough estimate of as per 42% out of 30 mil. people. Tombseye 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies regarding Khomeini's background

I actually misread Khomeini's origins. I recall reading about some family affiliation with India, but didn't realize that his grandfather was actually an Indian Muslim. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, he's still 3/4 Persian so I still believe he's great for the Persians page. Thanks. Tombseye 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the info. Honestly, I do not care about Khomeini :-) It's just because a biography of him that mentioned that he was neither Persian nor knew how to speak Persian. This is even attested in the book "Dar Posht-e Pardahaaye Enqelaab" ("behind the veils of revolution"), written by his personal bodyguard. There are sources claiming that he was an Indian from a Sikh background, which is rather a "conspiracy-theory" hoax. They see the proof in the similarities between Iran's post-revolution-flag and the traditional symbol of Sikhism: [2] Tajik 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Uzbek people page and Tamerlane

You make some valid points and I knew about Tamerlane's use of Chagatai, but actually most of the Uzbeks stem from Mongol peoples such as Tamerlane plus he was born there etc. I have no objections to replacing Tamerlane as such, but I think he can be claimed as an Uzbek given the overwhelming evidence that Uzbeks have a substantial amount (if not in the majority) of Mongol ancestry. The Uzbeks ethnically blur with Central Asian Tajiks and with Mongols. I realize though that the Mongol ancestry that is found in both populations doesn't seem to be very popular, although I imagine claiming descent from Tamerlane probably isn't quite as 'bad', the ethnic lines blurs with the two groups as Uzbeks show transition from Mongol types to Iranian types. By the way interesting stuff about Khomeini. I got a good laugh out of him being a Sikh! Tombseye 01:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I read about the wars between the Uzbeks and Timurids. I'm not really arguing the point as I was going to put a picture of Shaybani instead, but couldn't find one and since Mongols generally don't think of Tamerlane as their own I figured since he was born there and clearly the Mongols who lived there are now 'Uzbeks' it wouldn't matter. Ataturk is an entirely different case though as he was born a Turk who was, as far as we know, descended from a family of Turks who probably intermarried with local Balkan people over time. This is all subjective at any rate and I'm not really arguing that Tamerlane be kept, I was just saying why I put him up. Feel free to replace him. Preferably with Shaybani though. Ciao. Tombseye 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people page

I actually didn't put in those figures. I had input more conservative numbers based upon the Iranian census view that roughly 1/4 or less of Iranians are Azeris. The issue of the Safavids is a thorny one. The thing is that the Azeris, as we know, are not mostly of Turkic extraction (that is Central Asian) as genetic tests link them first to the Caucasus and second to Iranian peoples. Obviously, most Azeris became Turks due to acculturation. The Safavids do fall into this category and that was the reason to include Shah Ismail. Also, the Alevi relationship often united various 'Kurdish' groups such as the Zaza with emerging 'Turkic' groups like the Azeris that blurred the lines between them. This same phenomenon can be seen with successive generations of Saladin's descendents who lost more and more of their Kurdish identity. Mostly, I was applying the criteria of language and not 'race' as that's meaningless here. The Azeris are not Mongols and very little Central Asian ancestry as genetic tests have shown. Although, I think it'd be more accurate to say the Safavids were of mixed Kurdish-Azeri ancestry but again this comes back to the quandry of whether ethnic groups are defined by their languages and self-designation or not, especially when people intermingle to such a rate as to blur the lines. I'm not quite sure that this qualifies Shah Ismail's dismissal as he then can't be considered either Kurdish or Azeri. Of the two, given the Kurdish views that pertain to their language and people they claim as their own, Shah Ismail doesn't come up. Strangely enough, this seems to come up with from the Persian circles, who aren't Kurdish obviously but do claim affinity through their related Iranian languages. I can't help but think this is more about nationalism rather than accuracy as most reference books refer to Shah Ismail and the Safavids as a Turkic dynasty linked to the Azeris. However, if you have some of this research you are talking about that links Ismail to a definite Kurdish background, including no ancestry from the Azeris, then I'd be willing to go along with excluding him as an Azeri. Tombseye 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Hmm, interesting article and the discussion on the German page was interesting as well. Good thing I spent sieben jahre in Deutscheland. I'm not entirely convinced that Shah Ismail was Iranic as there appears to have been a process of Turkification of some Kurdish tribes who, in turn, seem to cluster genetically with Caucasus peoples more than other Iranian peoples (displaying again a language shift from some Caucasian language to an Iranian one just as the Albanians of Azerbaijan shifted to Azeri Turkish), BUT you make a good enough case that I wouldn't argue that Shah Ismail and the Safavids are one of those transitional situations that taking him down from the Azeri page won't be a travesty. Now who to replace Shah Ismail with that is an important Azeri historical figure and whose picture won't infringe any copyright problems? I'll see what I can find. Tombseye 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. You'll have to give me the info. and whatever links to information that specifically show that Ismail was never an Azeri and was merely the adopted son of an Azeri clan. I have mixed feelings on removing Ismail myself, and right now I haven't much time to do research of my own, but if you have something and want to let others in on it, come to the discussion page at the Azerbaijani people page and discuss your contentions. Thanks. Tombseye 06:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Ive seen your posts here and there.

Welcome!

Are you from Tajikistan?--Zereshk 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hello ... my family is from Afghanistan, but I am more German than Afghan ... aaahhhmmm ... Tajik ;)
-Tajik 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome! We need to fix the Tajikistan page. It is almost empty. It has no pictures! I have some pictures of Tajikistan. But Im not sure if we can use them (because of the copyright properties). The same for Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a beautiful country. Images are worth a 1000 words! --Zereshk 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that regarding the debate on the Safavid page, I think I came across a passage in Dehkhoda Dictionary where Dehkhoda saya that Sheikh Safiddin himself actually wrote his works in Persian. Just thought youd wanna know, if you already didnt. Keep up the good work.--Zereshk 10:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Turkophiles still push forfard the "ancient" belief that the Safavids were Turks or Turkic-speaking. Modern historians - Iranian and Non-Iranian - consider them ethnic KURDS who were linguistically (and probably even ethnically) Persianized. Of course, the Safavids had also Turkish ancestors (like almost everyone in Iran), but it would be totally wrong to call them "Turks", "Azeri" or "Turkic-speaking". The Encyclopaedia Iranica confirms your information, that Safi al-Din Ardabili wrote almost exclusivly in Persian. -Tajik 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The Dehkhoda Dic. also confirms that, as you say, they were Kurdish in origin. But I also found the following info:
  • Sheikh Safiddin was the 7th descendant of "Firuz-Shah" (who was not a Turk).
  • Shah Ismail wrote most if not all his letters (i.e. official letters) to Selim in Persian.
  • Shah Abbas' mother was from Mazandaran (though Im not sure of her ethnicity).
Zendeh bashi.--Zereshk 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Firuz Shah Zarrin-Kollah al-Kordi" ("Firuz Shah with the golden hat") was of Kurdish origin. That's attested in the "Silsilat al-nasab Safawiyah", the collected chronology of the Safawi grand-master family. Safi ud-Din Eshaq married the daughter of Sheikh Zahed ud-Din Gilani as-Sanjani (not to be confuzed with "Zanjan") who - as mentioned in his name - was from Khorasan (Sanjan was an ancient city near Merv and Herat). Their children were the grand-masters of the "Safawiyah" tariqa. Thus, the Safawids were of a Perso-Kurdish origin, later mixed with some Turkish influence (Ismail's grandfather was Uzun Hasan of the Aq Quyunlu) which was rather minor. -Tajik 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Award

Tajik is awarded this Barnstar for being one of the few Wikipedians who know what they're actually talking about. Latinus 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Can you please stop

Nobody expects you to like Turks.However, stop posting lie and unfair informations about Turks.

spokesman of Miss -Inanna-

Vandalism and talk pages

Hi, if you feel that someone is misusing Wikipedia, e.g. by vandalizing articles, please use their talk pages to notify them. Without that, administrators are not willing to block users. You may also want to look here for some common messages you can post on a users' talk page. Thanks, RexNL 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule, which may even lead to a block. :-( RexNL 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to say that you are doing a good job in dealing with vandals, good luck! --Eupator 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are in the picture , obviously!

Tajik, go read the SAFAVIDS article's first few paragraphs and you find everything on SAFI Al-Din and his MURSHID Sheikh Zahed (Tadj Al-Din Al Kordi al Sanjani) or have a look on this website, where there is quite a bit about this history, I found it worthwhile perusing: http://www.zahedi.info . Good to have you around here!Pantherarosa 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do continue contributing. dast-e shoma dard nakoneh.--Zereshk 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

-Hello Tajik, I'm Afghan Historian, a wikipedian. I'm from Pakistan but I have a lot of Pashtun/Afghan ancestry so I'm technically of the same culture as you. My mother tongue, however, is Urdu. I was doing a lot of reading on Afghanistan and I would like to know something. Could Afghanistan be considered Iranian with small Indian influence or a meeting place of Indo-Aryan(Indian) and Iranian culture. I read that some South Asian based Hindu kingdoms and empires ruled here along with the dominant Iranian peoples. I would appreciate your help, as you are from Afghanistan and my ancestors left Afghanistan centuries and centuries ago. -User: Afghan Historian

Salam

Sorry for not being able to show my face around as requested.

As you can see, I am currently busy putting out yet another attack on Iranian pages. Some users are desperately trying to erase/merge the Iranian people article. Their claim is that the term "Iranian people" does not exist. (can you beleive that?)! I'm just waiting for their next ridiculous claim (..."Iran never existed! Erase their article!" ...."Persia was made up by Hollywood! Merge Persia with Hollywood!"...."Aryans were from South America!"...)

It would be great if you drop us a line of help there.--Zereshk 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Safavid Dynasty

Just wanted to congratulate you on the re-writing of the introductory paragraph - the current wording seems to cover all the facts accurately while being NPOV. Hopefully everyone can agree with the current form of the page.

Regards, An Siarach

Thank you. Congratulations to you as well. Tajik 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Persians

As you know the user Aucaman has been vandalizing Persian people, as well as several other Iran-related articles, claiming that "modern Persians are mix of Arabs and Mongols" editing the article, or adding a dispute tag, based on his own personal assumptions and conclusions without any valid source to support such outrageous revisionist theory. Please carry on the discussion on Talk:Persian_people, so we can reach a consensus for the removal of the "dispute tag".

Iranian Watchdog

Aucaman and a few others like Heja Helweda and Diyako have been repeatedly and systematically vandalizing the Iran-related topics such as Persian people and Iranian peoples, propagating false information, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting without one shred of proof to backup their wild claims, applying the strawman falsification approach, trying to establish new 'facts" based on their own personal assumptions and beliefs.

In order to prevent this situation, we need to create an Iranian Watchdog on Wikipedia and guard the integrity and quality of all the Wikipedia articles that are related to Iran and Iranians. Please let me know if you think that's a good idea. --ManiF 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tajik

Dorod bar to ey doost e gerami. Hey there, It's great to see some Tajik editors in wikipedia. All the best !. --Amir85 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Firstly, calm down and stop making accusations against me. I'm already sick and tired of all the Persian and Iranian-bashing that's been going on here on WP (see Talk:Persian people), so I really don't need a fellow Persian attacking me. Anyway, see Talk:Safavids/Archive1#Turkic_belonging_of_the_Safavids:_further_evidence._Pantherarosa.E2.80.99s_biased_POV_exposed for sources which clearly state that Safavids were "Turkic-speaking." Iranica doesn't say anything about their ethnic origins, and most sources don't either, except for one or two listed in the above link which state that Safavids were descended from nomadic Turkic tribes. FYI, Azeri/Turkic does not equal "Turkish" (people from Turkey). It is commonly accepted that Safavids were Azeri. But if you have sources, preferably more than just Iranica (which again, doesn't clarify the ethnic issue), which define the Safavids as ethnically non-Turkic, then we can create include both views in the Origins section and leave any mention of ethnic origins out of the intro paragraph. SouthernComfort 06:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you're going to continue attacking me and calling me a "Persian tool of Pan-Turkists" I'm not going to bother communicating with you. If you want some resolution to this dispute, stop the attacks and communicate like a human being. SouthernComfort 10:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
But other sources have been provided which contradict yours. The only solution is to include all the sources, since they are all academic, as far as I can tell. Also, you need to stop attacking the other editors as Pan-Turkists because believe me, if they were, they would not be willing to compromise and they are willing to communicate and reach consensus. Also, Grandmaster is involved there and he seems a very reasonable editor as well. SouthernComfort 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Get your facts straight buddy. That wasn't the version I edited. I made my edit after another revert war which again radically changed the intro paragraph. My preference is to remove all mention of ethnic or linguistic issues from the intro paragraph and move it to an appropriate section, since there is obviously controversy. SouthernComfort 10:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm strange? You're the one accusing me of Pan-Turkism - that's pretty bizarre. Anyway, I reintroduced "Azeri origin" in order to avert another revert war so that discussion could continue while I figure out a reasonable compromise that would please everyone. I think we're getting there, and I see no reason why Tabib or Grandmaster would object to my suggestion. SouthernComfort 11:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Tajik, please stop reverting on Safavids, you'll get blocked for violating the 3RR. Don't revert (or edit) that article for at least 24 hours. --Latinus 18:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Help


Aucaman

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman. Endorse if you agree (and if you are interested in seeing the Iranian articles, particularly Persian people and Iranian peoples remain intact). SouthernComfort 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello

I thought you might be interested in this.Endorse if you agree with the case. --ManiF 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi Tajik. today by accident i looked at the article Safavids and shoked by the claimes in the article. I found that you are discussing the matter that safavids were Iranian or at least not originally Turkic-speaking. I agree with you but just wanted to ask you that "except Iranica" what are your other sources, maybe I can help by providing neutral and credible sources regarding the issue of Safavids Iranian background. Diyako Talk + 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources are the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" [3] and the "Encyclopaedia of Islam", the two most authoritive and most important sources regarding Iranian and Islamic history. Both sources say: Safavids were ethnic Irans and the ones who RE-ESTABLISHED the Persian identity in Iran after centuries of Turkic and Mongol rule. Tajik 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see. There are many sources regarding their Iranian origin, but it takes a little time to provide all of them. I'll do my best [4].
Diyako Talk + 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Massachusetts institute of technology
Diyako Talk + 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
More sources:
[5], [6], [7].
Diyako Talk + 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Wikipedians' Notice Board (WatchDog)

Please bookmark this page, for daily updates on the status of the Iran-related articles. Read notices posted by others or add your own notice by updating "Urgent view". --ManiF 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Ok, I'll have a word with them and see if we can come to a compromise. --Khoikhoi 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik. To be quite honest, I really don't think anyone is going to convince anyone of their origins. It doesn't matter anymore. What matters is how we can come up with a compromise for an edit war that has been going on since early January.
I think the current version is good, but we need to expand the origins section. We can then add sources for all the information there supporting both sides. --Khoikhoi 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just don't think this edit war will ever end if just ignore the other side of the argument. Trust me, the only way edit wars end are by compromises. --Khoikhoi 23:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We also have sources that clearly state that they were Turkic-speaking. It seems to me that you are not willing to compromise. --Khoikhoi 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You know Iran was called Persia then, right? --Kash 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in Iran it has always been called IRAN. But in other countries and in English it was known as Persia until the request of Reza Pahlavi in 1920s or so. If we are not to use the name that it was called back then by others then maybe we should consider a rewrite of Persian empire! --Kash 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just noticed this:

In 1959, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, before his removal from power by his own people on the charge of being too heavily influenced by foreigners, announced that both Persia and Iran can be used interchangeably. on Persian empire. Lol I don't know about you, but to me I think he probably announced that because of his personal nationalist ideas instead of 'being too heavily influenced by foreigners' which is probably just POV a pro-khomeini.. what do you think? --Kash 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yes the original Hakhamanesh was created by Persians, but since then there have been many other empires and rulers from other ethnics. Now, all of them are called Persian Empire but thats in English. In Iran, they are not called Emperatooriyane Parsi!, did we miss something ;)? --Kash 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Safavids

Tajik, your last edit is not overly helpful, as the phrasing now implies that they were INITIALLY turkic speaking and INITIALLY Iranian (INITIALLY IRANIAN??) It is also downright silly to assert that ethnicity is based on the language someone speaks! In that case the entire COMMONWEALTH of NATIONS could be stamped ANGLE SAXON, from London all the way to New Zealand. While iranian is the universally applicable attribute (Kurdish origin was claimed by the Sufi sheikhs themselves in the Saffat-ol-Safa!), the languages spoken by the first SHAH, Esmail/Ismail the First were surely Turkic and Persian. Turkic, because his MOTHER was the daughter of the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlou tribe leader, UZUN HASSAN, who certainly spoke TURKIC. Read more in the Safavids TALK page about it. While there was zero political Turkic Nationhood in Azerbayjan of those days, some present Azeri nationals, in an often infantile manner seek to carve out selfcongratulary roots for themselves and their NEW Azerbayjani State, forgetting that their Turkic roots come from as far away as present day Mongolia from the Uigurs, who migrated all the way to Konstantinople from their longstanding, transitory West Chinese homeland (in Xinkiang Province) Pantherarosa 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

safavi

Hi

I was just wondering what do you think of this:

The Safavids were an Iranian dynasty of Azerbaijani origin that ruled from 1501 to 1736,

As intro for the safavi article? this version can put an end to the dispute and I think it is better than Turkic speaking specially in the intro. What do you think?

thanks

Gol 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no good idea, because "Azerbaijani origin" is wrong. Haydar Safavi, Shah Ismail's father, was a Kurd from Anatolia who had moved to Azerbaijan. Therefore, "Azerbaijani origin" is wrong! The Seljuq kings were all born in Iranian lands, but noone would ever call them "of Iranian origin" - although they were from Iran and they were Persian-speaking. The Seljuqs are still considered "Turks", because one of their forefathers some centuries ago was a Turk. The same goes to the Safavids: their ancestors were Iranian and Iranian-speaking, and they themelvs never opposed Persian or Persian elements in their dynasty. Calling the Safavids "of Azerbaijani (=Turkish) origin" is deffinitly wrong. Tajik 12:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year

Have you seen Newroz? Diyako has changed the page "Newroz" from being a redirect of Norooz to a new article of its own. I'm not sure what to do about this. --ManiF 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to change it to "Nouruz" or "Nowruz", becazse "Newroz" sounds REALLY strange! And of course, Happy New Year to you as well :) Tajik 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh! Now I got it ... it's about the Turkish celebration *lol* Tajik 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

Nevruz is not very similar to the Irnian festival of Norouz it is Norouz!

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks

You may wish to assist in finding sources for the Tajiks article. Aucaman is attempting to contest the use of "Aryan" in Iranian and Iranian peoples' articles and going so far as to remove the term entirely. SouthernComfort 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Can I please have your e-mail address? Thanks. --ManiF 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please send me an e-mail to manif@hotmail.com, I need to discuss something with you. Cheers. --ManiF 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Schau mal auf Safi Al-Din

Sieh Dir die Talk Seite an! Wir haben es mit geistig minderbemittelten Psychopathen zu tun! Ich habe keine Musse mehr mich mit so einem IGNORANTEN DRECK auseinanderzusetzen! Du bist jung und rüstig! Tu Dein Bestes!Pantherarosa 13:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please change your vote as regards the issue of moving Safavids to Safavid dynasty - all the other dynastic articles of Iran adhere to this naming convention. SouthernComfort 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to Talk

Can you please discuss these points on the talk pages, because I may not always be here to discuss them. Now,

  • Kabul is now the capital of Afghanistan, and that is what I believe is implied, Obvioulsy it was not the capital when the invasion took place.
    • We are talking about Kabul too, which is the capital of Afghanistan. - Irishpunktom\talk
  • Timur was a Turk, and this harps back to previous discussions - He was of the Barlos tribe. This tribe, like many others boasted a Mongol name and ancestry but for all practical purposes it was Turkic. Turki was Timurs' mother tongue, altough he may have known some Persian from the Cultural milieu in which he lived; he almost certainly knew no Mongolian, though Mongol terminology had not quite disappeared from administrative documents and coins.
    • "All of Timurs descendents native Persian-speakers". What is your point here? Timurs empire extended into persia. Persian was one of their languages, they also spoke in a Turkic dialect, are you suggesting they were mono-linguist?- Irishpunktom\talk
  • Babur's biography is a primary source, and one of few we have. Babur is a Turco-Mongol, as stated. His Turk origins being far more than his Mongol.
    • I never claimed the entire dynasty, the Moughal empire was Turkish. Don't put quotes around words I have not said - It is dishonest. Your claim that "There is not a single official document of the Mughal era written in Turkish" is very very false. Firstly, you are right, there will be no document written in the Turkish language, because the Turkish language is but one of many Turkic languages. If you re contending that no turkic language was ever used in Baburs court, you are wrong and I would suggest you do well by reading "A history of India as told by its historians"--Irishpunktom\talk
  • The Encyclopaedia Iranica is the antithesis of Wikipedia - It is explicitly POV, writing on Iranian history from an Iranian POV. We need to be neutral here. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Encyclopaedia Iranica "focuses on the land, life, culture and history of all Iranian peoples and their interaction with other societies."[8], and thus, as I have said, is the opposite of NPOV. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Tajik - I would like to send you a copy of the Baburnama. Timur considered himself a Turk and a Mongol (or, a turco-Mongol). He, like Babur, spoke Turki. Here are some sources: [9][10][11][12]. The Encyclopaedia Iranica speaks from an Iranian POV, not a neutral one. Thus, while it is a good guide, its overview can not be NPOV. Its not designed that way. That does not make it bad, the encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, has always been based in ethno-centrism, it does not make it neutral, and it is cases like this where it can be seen to fall down. Further, the EI and the EIr are not immune from being incorrect. I can give you the name of at least twenty books which cite both Babur and Timur as being Turco-Mongol. Books published by authorative academic publishers, such as Princeton and Oxford. The EIr will overstate Persian attributes, because it is desgined, essentially, to take into account Iranian history and geography to much more of an extent that that of other peoples and cultures. Thats just the way it is. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Self Revert

Greetings, please self-revert your last edit on Mughal Empire as you are currently in violation of WP:3RR on it and if you do not you will likely be subject to blocking. Netscott 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From previous experience I can tell you that Irishpunktom likes to file 3RR violation reports and most likely won't hesitate to file one against you... that would be unfortunate because you've never been blocked. Please know that from previous experience in dealing with Irishpunktom's typically heavy POV edits I'm inclined to trust your edits more. Netscott 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome, please do your best to not enter into revert wars. From my own tendency to revert back and forth I've been advised to employ WP:DR when encountering such difficulties so I'd advise the same to you. You seem knowledgeable in your edits. You might want to check on some of the articles that Irishpunktom's been working on and see if some of them could use some assistance on your part. Thanks! Netscott 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that I've reverted Irishpunktom's "dubious" information out of the article you may want to contact an admin about it. Irishpunktom doesn't tend to give up entering his POVerted edits easily. Netscott 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of seeing you blocked - we are in the middle of some excellent discussions on the Babur page.. what good would blocking you have on these discussions. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your remarks on Babur - amazing what can be achieved through debate rather than mindless reverting! I think you'll find that the term Tajik has a long pre-Russian pedigree (it appears in the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi amongst other places) but its meaning has changed over time, so we can leave that for another day. I'm quite happy with Babur as it stands.Sikandarji 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim World

Sorry to bother you again but I'm just curious, off hand do you see anything wrong with Irishpunktom's removal of this info on Muslim World? Netscott 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You will find that the information I removed glorified the Ottoman Turks as being the spreaders of Islam ("The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire".) Whis is obvioulsy wrong, but Netscott, for some reason, wants it in.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Ottomans were the ones who brought Islam to Europe. Yet, they were not responsible for the spread of Islam in the rest of the so-called "Islamic world" Tajik 09:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Depends of what Europe you talk about - The ottomans did not, for example, bring Islam to Spain, where the caliphate of Cordoba was situated. The largest European Muslim population today is in France, brought via French imperialism and immigration from former colonies. The Ottomans took Constantinople and spread Islam to the Balkans, but Islam is not a Balkans base religion, so the idea that "Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire" is so very very wrong. I still don't understand why Netscott wants it in.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest my view is fairly neutral on the information. I'm just really against mass removal of information seemingly done in bad faith with little to no explanation. User:Bhadani independently had the same concerns if one looks at the history of the article. The editing on Babur and Mughal Empire reminded me of that previous Muslim World case and admittedly not being in an authoritative position on the subject matter of Muslim World it seemed sensible to ask the opinion of an editor who does strike me as someone who would be knowledgeable. Netscott 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a Talk page there you know! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Humayun

Greetings. I have made a series of contributions to the Humayun article, and was hoping you could take a look and make any fixes or additions you may feel are needed. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Right now, I am quite busy ... I'll have a look at it when I have some more time. Tajik 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Salam

Thought you might be interested in this info I stumbled across yesterday:

"The Safavid dynasty of Persia itself was also a hybrid of Kurdish and Turcomen bloodlines, with the root being fully and completely Kurdish. On another occasion, a hybrid of Kurd and Lur elements ruled Persia under the Zand dynasty, 1750-1794." Lawrence G. Potter, Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004. Macmillan. ISBN 1403964505, p.75

Take it easy.--Zereshk 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful information. That's what we've been saying from the beginning on. Since the background of the dynasty is usually defined by the male linage of the family, the Safavids were Kurds (the Turcoman linage was that of Shah Ismail's mother, who was hal-Turcoman and half-Greek) and the Zands were Lurs. Tajik 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

I noticed that you helped with reverting the article. Is it just me or is the article not clear on the definition of Iranian peoples?! Thanks for the help. Tombseye 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are those you are talking about, however they are not really iranian, those mullahs have been as much mixed with the arabs as the pashtuns. --Darkred 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timurid Empire neutrality

Can you please explain what part of this article is not neutral? I can't see any opinions in there although I may have misunderstood. --Tombom23 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is one-sided and panturkic POV. The Timurids were not Turkic, but a Mongol dynasty (out of the Mongol Berlas clan). Timur even claimed to be descendant of Djingiz Khan, and he married inti Djingiz Khan's family. (Just take a look at the article Timur).
Although Timur's mother tongue was Chaghatai Turkic, the dynasty itself was culturally Persian and not Turkic. Timur's son Shahrukh - being born to a Persian mother - moved his capital from Turkistan to Persian Herat, "Persianized" the state, appointed Persian administrators and Wezirs, and funded and supported Persian arts and language.
This article contradicts other major (and authoritive) sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Even a comparison to the German Wikipedia exposes the major fraud of this article. Besides that, there is already an article about the Timurids --> Timurids.
Tajik 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Kizilbash

Yeah, but this very far-fetched claim, for whoever making it. With Hurramids and even earlier Mazdakism. Sounds strenous. Certainly they did not consider themselves as such, I can assure you of this abdulnr 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'll check out the Kizilbash article as I know a little about them and I believe I've encountered a few in my travels. At any rate, I'll do what I can as I am always happy to help. Tombseye 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[13] made on May 5 2006 (UTC) to Kizilbash====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Zoroastrian mythology

should it be merged with persian mythology? User:Fullstop got rid of it without any notification


History of Tajikistan

I am doing something on Turkmen History and noticed that History of Tajikistan is not very weill organized artice. Maybe you will be interested in working on it? abdulnr 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Qizilbash

The Qizilbash were Alevi Turkish military order that was vanguard of Shia armies. They were mostly Turks from modern Azerbaijan region of Iran and sothern Turkey. In Turkey, Alevi shia sect is also referred to as Kizilbash. Siddiqui 12:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In Turkey, people belonging to Alevi sect are also refereed to as Qizilbash by the Turks.
Siddiqui 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There are many people with Qizilbash as their family name in Pakistan. It is not associated with Shia though most of them could be Shia. Former President of Pakistan Yahya Khan, Former finance minister Nawab Muzaffar Ali Khan Qizilbash, singer Mahjabeen Qizilbash, musician Asad Qizilbash, etc. There are too many to mention.
Siddiqui 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Iranian peoples

Hello Tajik. Thanks, I'll put in that when I get the chance. May go well at the beginning portion of the article. I see Qizilbash is slowly taking shape. So far so good. Tombseye 16:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems on Pashtuns page

Greetings. There are some problems on the Pashtuns page as some new users want to rename the page 'Pathans' with the intent to claim that the Pashtuns are subgroup of Pathans! I have no idea what they're talking about, but since I recall you saying you're from Afghanistan can put in your two cents? Thanks. Tombseye 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the following articles

I am an Azari and a member of that groups project page do to my difference of opinion user:Grandmaster and Baku want to force me out and they delete my user box, but more importantly is our disputes on the articles. User:Grandmaster even deletes my contributions and arguments on the talk page as he has done with other sin the past. Look at Azari/Azeri people please including this articles talk page, the Music of Azarbaijan, including Talk:Music of Azarbaijan, Talk:Iranian Azarbaijan, and the Azeri Wikiproject page and its discussion, including my own talk page. What user:Grandmaster is pushing is unfair and how he monopolizes the articles. He puts citations next to my edits and deletes them if citations are not found, but the citations asked for that have been next to his ssertions that Azaris are Turkic have never been filled. 72.57.230.179

Additionally look at what I reported to the editors;

[[14]]

Thanks 72.57.230.179

In regards to this edit

Perhaps you could leave a note on Talk:Iranian languages about what exactly is inaccurate about it, so it can be corrected. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dorood bar shomaa

Dorood. BTW if you speak Russian let me know. --Ali doostzadeh 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic

Please keep an eye on Azari and the talk:Azari. I have started the following in the discussion.

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge. 72.57.230.179

Sart

روز بخير

I've added another comment on the Talk:Babur page (let's keep this good-natured, shall we) but I have no quarrel with your deletions. I was wondering if you could look at some of the changes I've made to Sart and tell me what you think.

خودا حافظ

اسکندر

Sikandarji 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ghorids and Ghurids

I have created disambugation page Ghauri and wanted to add the link to the merged page of Ghorids and Ghurids. You can merge these pages or we can work together merge this page. Siddiqui 02:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to your question here

help?

Any help you could give to Hujum would be appreciated? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik alphabet

Hi, could you take a look at Tajik alphabet please and either be bold, or make suggestions on the talk page. I could do with someone who actually knows the language to make sure I'm not making any mistakes :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik,

He seems to have stopped. I reccommend you start a thread on the talk page about it. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye out, too, Tajik. I don't know enough about Babur to be able to do much there, but I've definitely got my eye on Fuzûlî (since I rewrote that page from scratch to get it into the form it's in now, it's a bit like one of my precious babies), and also on Alisher Navoi. —Saposcat 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kilwa Empire

Hi, someeone created an article on the Kilwa Empire, which is apparently linked to the Bazrangids. As this new article seems to be based on the same sources as the original Bazrangids article, and you apparently found quite a few inaccuracies in that one, could you please check the new article too? I'm a bit suspicious about the quality of that source, but I lack expertise to check myself. Thanks --Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hey Tajik,

I reverted his rampage through the articles, and if he continues I'll bring something up about it at WP:AN/I. Khodafez. —Khoikhoi 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Timur

Turkic is different to "Turkish", is it not? Please change it yourself. --K a s h Talk | email 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Man I am gonna be away for a day or two, if there are any troubles let User:InShaneee know, he will deal with it. Ps. I have asked for protection of Babur. --K a s h Talk | email 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

babur

the source you have added says "Until 1562 the life at the Moghul court had been purely Persian Turkish. One dressed Persian, had Persian yard painters in the service, wrote Persian and Turkish poems, built in the Persian style with walls from multicolored-glazed tiles and zwiebelkuppeln(?). During the next ten years thereby ever more the tradition of the Indian Mohammedaner mixed" - and are using it as a source to "the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, his tribe had embraced Turkic and Persian culture" - it doesn't, remove it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thats better, but the problem remains really - Its talking about Babur, not about the Barlas tribe, of whom the cite is supposed to corroborate the claim that the tribe "embraced Turkic and Persian culture". --Irishpunktom\talk 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
How about just adding that, instead of whats there now?--Irishpunktom\talk 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch the article and make sure it remains intact whenever I can. I'm in the middle of also editing Azeris, but I'll keep an eye on the article, no problem. Tombseye 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Why did you revert my edit on Babur? --ManiF 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly advice. I know that you are frustrated but keep a cool head and don't let them get to you. Nazar ke asabit bekonan, khudet rou control kon. Ghorbanat. --ManiF 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik,

If he's going up against established sources, basically he cant do shit. If he doesnt want to discuss things as well, here's what I would do:

  • Keep reverting his deletions everyday while avoiding 3RR.
  • Continue doing so for a couple of days, repeatedly, again and again, as long as it takes.
  • Maintain your cool and just wait.
  • Eventually he will start heating up and begin taking more drastic (foolish) measures.
  • That's when others will start stepping in to stop him.
  • Or....he'll eventually get tired and just go away.

Honestly, dont let someone with an agenda who doesnt accept sources play you. If you are backed up by sources, theres nothing this guy can do. NOTHING.

All you have to do is maintain your cool at all times and continue doing what youre doing.

Unfortunately, he's causing alot of trouble in other places as well. But Im not too worried. It doesnt take people with an agenda too long to get exposed and dealt with.--Zereshk 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia

We'd be glad to see your contributions on Persian Wikipedia :-) ‍‍Hessam 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Ghauri

I am very busy on a project and do not have much time to contribute to Wikipedia. I glanced at Pashtun, Babur, Ghurids, Ghorids, Kizilbash and al-Farabi. I will review them in detail in future. Thanks. Siddiqui 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, movazab bash ke bish az se baar revert nakoni, alan chahar bar revert kardi tou Nezami, ageh kesi reportet koneh barat moshkel ijaad misheh. --ManiF 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Gardez

I am looking into your article Tajik..if i spot some major mistakes I'll get in touch. t'shukar --Zak 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Will certainly help. btw, we have the article Nizami Arudhi Samarqandi. Keep cool bro.--Zereshk 23:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I'll keep my eye out on the iranian portal --Zak 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

As you know Pashtuns hardly recognise themselves as Iranian, and now they reject Farvahar as the symbol of Iranian people. I think we should definately keep this symbol as it is the single most important symbol of Iranian people and their greatest contribution to the man kind. --K a s h Talk | email 11:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Out of curiosity, do virtually all Tajiks, in Tajikistan for example, consider themselves to be ethnic Persians, or a distinct ethnic group that are closely related to the Persians? Is the situation different in Afghanistan? I just couldn't help but notice that this map says Tajik instead of Persian. —Khoikhoi 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, one of the templates ({{Iranian languages}} or {{Persian language}}) should be added to Aimaq language. —Khoikhoi 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. My second question is: If most Tajiks don't consider themselves Persians, is it our job to label them as such? Also, you said that Tajiks just call themselves "Afghans", does the same for go Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and Hazara living in Afghanistan?
As for {{Turkic}}, you could either try to fix it up or go to Templates for deletion. That Ernst Kausen is fascinating, I wish he could get an account over here!
Adios, —Khoikhoi 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I just created Persian dialects and varieties. Feel free to fix up anything that's incorrect. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. —Khoikhoi 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying know. That's really interesting that the Russians basically created those ethnic groups. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Babak issue

Yes, I know what you saying, but one of the arguments under the Iranian theory for the Azeris is that the Iranians were turkified so the Nezami statue is relevant because I put it where the Iranian theory is to make a point on the issue. If you read that section and see Nezami there and the caption that explains things any reader will get the point. As for Babak, he too was part of the same situation, but mainly he is discussed in the history section and is not mentioned as an Azeri. However we have copyright problems anyway so it's a moot point. I don't think's its important to have Babak and yes he was most likely an Iranian etc. Tombseye 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dari

Sure, I'll read through it. Also, would you mind not reverting the Azerbaijani people article for now or the next few days? As outlined in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, we can't have too many edit wars occur, thanks. —Khoikhoi 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed a new user that seems to be editing Tajikistan articles a lot - his name is User:David Straub. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done. How's that? :D —Khoikhoi 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

salaam baraadar aziz

I have some information from the translation of Robert Devereux that you might want to insert in that article.

(MIR ‘ALI SHIR NAWA’I, Nizam al-Din ‘Ali Shir) Muhakamat al-lughatrain, by Mir ‘Ali Shir. Introduction, translation and notes by Robert Devereux. xii, 92pp. 4to. Wraps. Leiden (E.J. Brill), 1966.

From the introduction pages X- XI

Any linguistc of today who reads the essay will inevitably conclude that Nawa'i argued his case poorly, for his pricipal argument is that the Turkish lexicon conatined many words for which the Persian had no exact equivalents and that Persian-speakers had therefore to use the Turkish words. This is a weak reed on which to lean, for it is rate lnaugage indeed that contains no loan words. In any case, the beauty of a language and its merit as a literay medium depend less on size of vocabulary and purity of etymology that on the euphony, expresiveness and malleability of those words it its lexicon does include. Moreover, even if Nawa'i's thesis were to be accepted as valid, he destroyed his own case by the lavius use, no doubt unknowingly, of non-Turkish words even while ridiculing the Persians for their need to borow Turkish words. The present writer hs not made a word count of Nawa'i's text, but he would estimate conservatively that at least one half the words used by Nawa'i in the essay are Arabic or Persian in origin. To support his claim of the superiority of the Turkish language, Nawa'i also employs the curious argument that most Turks also spoke Persian but only a few Persians ever achieved fluency in Turkish. It is difficult to understand why he was impressed by this phenomenon, since the most obvious explanation is that Turks found it necessary, or at least advisable, to learn Persian-it was, after all, the official state language-, while Persians saw no reason to bother leaning Turkich, which was, in their eyes, merely the uncivilized tongue of uncivilized nomadic tribesmen.

So do you think we can incorporate any of this information?

Also Navai calls his teacher Jami in this work as well and I can bring the actual quotes..If you send me an email, I will send you a very useful article as well.

Khoda Negahdaar --Ali doostzadeh 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi!

Your username is Tajik (so I assume you are a Tajik) and according to your user page you're from Afghanistan. Have you ever been to Tajikistan, though? If so, is there a difference between the Tajiks there and in Afghanistan? I'm just curious, I guess. -- Clevelander 13:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks and Kizilbash

I will try to get to Tajiks and perhaps Kizilbash at some point. Kash just contacted me with regards to Persians and given the inordinate amount of problems with that article and the edit wars and POV assertions etc. of the past, I may do that article next. Then Tajiks etc. while I have time still. It does seem a shame that only one of Afghanistan's main ethnic groups has a featured article afterall. ;) Tombseye 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; why did you revert the Birth Place

I am sorry why did you rever the birth place. I want to correct the article. When you give someones birth place you list the nation, e.g. The American President (x) was born in Dallas, Texas, Florida. You will not say that the American President was born in Dalles the South. That is what that article on SHah Ismail the first was saying. I think it should keep to the norm. Shah Ismail I was born in Ardabeil, Iran (Persia) [and the region should follow] in Iranian Azarbaijan.

What do you think? Is my explanation rational? 69.196.164.190

Re: Chess

Hi Tajik. No, unfortunately I’m not a chess grandmaster and my user name has nothing to do with chess. Chess is a very popular sport in Azerbaijan, and I used to play in school, but gave it up later. My brother was a more advanced player and even had a grade in chess, but he gave it up too. I will be glad to play chess with you any time. Take care. Grandmaster 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

Just becuase my map on the Persian language has some mistakes, doesn't mean you should remove it. If their are any mistakes, please tell me and I can update it.--Fox Mccloud 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns

That's a great idea Tajik. Indeed The Taliban were pretty big into anti-Persianism. I had totally missed that case. I think you would be the best person to write in the new section. My knowledge on the Pashtun topics is very limited. It would be also great if you could find sources and add in the massacres in Andijon (Uzbekistan), which to the best of my knowledge, also had an ethnic twist in them.--Zereshk 23:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian languages map

These are not "mistakes": I am aware that Persian-Dari-Tajik form a dialect continuum. So what? The map is not "mine", but based on a notable source (Jost Gippert). It is intended to serve as a thumbnail, and necessarily not all dialects are labelled. You will also have noted my offer to send the layers to anyone wanting to add detail to the map. While it can be improved, it is clearly attributed, unlike the prior map for which some entries were rather dubitable. You will still note that the image page still links to the older map. Finally, the geographic features of the older map were a disaster, the coastlines and boundaries looked like a napkin doodle. So, you are free to add detail to the present map, but as a thumbnail it is clearly superior to what we had before. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


here's what you can do: Take a map of the area to the GIMP and create a map showing those minor languages that can be sourced (the minor languages of Persia and those in Israel appear in none of the sources listed at Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap24.PNG, and insert that larger map in the section listing the languages (it is pointless to have dozens of minuscule labels on a thumbnail of a width of 300px). You can also have my layered map and add detail, based on Gippert's map. When I have an issue with something on Wikipedia, it is my habit to fix it myself, rather than posing ultimata to others that they should fix it, and you should do the same. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

what is your problem? I have just admitted that Persian, Dari and Tajik are essentially the same language, and neither Gippert nor my map claim otherwise. I maintain that my map is superior for

  • showing more accurate distributions
  • showing geographical features
  • colour-coding W and E Iranian
  • having a source (!)
  • its main labels being readable in thumbnail size

Point out a glaring mistake in the map (mis-labelled dialects, blatant inaccuracy in copying dialect boundaries) and I will fix it . dab (ᛏ) 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

you haven't told me what is wrong with it. What statement in the EI is ignored? If you point that out, I can easily add that to the map, citing EI as a reference. So far you merely complained about the tone of yellow for Dari/Tajik, and about missing labels. I don't see that "your" map shows larger areas of Uzbekistan as Iranian-speaking, but if you show me a source that too can be changed. dab (ᛏ) 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

we are getting somewhere now :) Once and for all: I am prepared to paint Persian/Dari/Tajik the exact same tone of yellow, so stop making the point already: I agree, and never disagreed in the first place. I will upload a new version of the map where there is one single yellow spanning Persian/Dari/Tajik. Beyond that, I have no opinion on the ethnic composition of Afghanistan. It was my first aim to summarize Gippert's map as well as possible for the purposes of a thumbnail. After we can agree that my map is a reasonable summary of Gippert's map, you are free to introduce information from other sources, as long as you cite them on the image page. Frankly, this sort of effort should better go into sub-articles like Pashto language, since the distinction will be lost in the thumbnail, anyway. Regarding Luri: no, it is not the same colour as Tajik. Use "select by colour" or "pick colours": The Tajik hue is exact yellow, while Luri has a green component. There are only so many colours I can use, seeing that I use yellow-green tints for West and orange-purple tints for East Iranian. But, sheesh, you are really splitting hairs. The old map doesn't even attempt to colour-code genetic groupings. If you want to introduce an optimized colour-scheme, better than that of any other map we have so far, do it yourself. dab (ᛏ) 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Goals

You added the penalty shoot out goals - but these have not been added and should not be added as they do not count officially towards the record.


Wiki-Pashtun

Salam ..I've created the wiki-pashtuns page to help setup a pashtun wiki project dealing with pashtun articles. Feel free to add and join in!

--Zak 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Babak and Persians

Hey Tajik, thanks for the BBC article. I did want to talk to you though with regards to the stuff going with the Persians. I noticed some activity there and realized that someone has added Tajiks as 'Persians', which in effect negates the Tajiks page. Now the problem with this is the article on the Persians will turn into a massive article describing cultural variations and divergent histories etc. I'm not sure this is a good way to go. Tajiks are indeed Persians, but are as distinct as the Slovaks are from the Czechs or the Croats from Serbs (both groups speak mutually intelligible languages or basically the same language). In addition, as you well know, many, if not most, don't call themselves Persians anyway (most I've met refer to themselves as Afghans or will talk of their 'Aryan' lineage). The way we've set it up, on Iranian peoples was good in that we had Tajiks as a sub-type of Persians (which I believe you put in), and thus can have their own article as both a closely related type of Central Asian Persians and as an Iranian people with many distinct qualities of their own (linking them more to Persians in northeast Iran rather than those of western Iran), including the Tajiks of Tajikistan. In addition, most references distinguish between the two, while clarifying Tajiks as an Iranian people, usually referred to as Central Asian Persians. In short, after all this, I think it's a huge mistake to subsume the Tajiks given the weight of history and divergence that has taken place simply due to the vast geographic expanse and the Tajiks own unique qualities. Ciao. Tombseye 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but the problem is that most references, aside from Iranica et. al., do define Tajiks as a distinct group. The Croats and Serbs don't speak different languages and their divergent origins are really more a matter of national mythology than reality. Serbo-Croatian is their language and their origins are both Slavic (academically speaking). All of that aside, are you in favor of then subsuming the Tajiks into the Persians article? Also, then the Parsis may be incorporated as well. I think the Tajiks are a distinct type of Persians and have differences that separate them enough from the Persians so that they should have their own article. The analogy more apt could be the Turkomans of Iraq and Azeris, both with the same language with variations. Ultimately, one has to keep in mind that Tajiks don't necessarily identify themselves as 'Persians', i.e. Persians of Iran, due to the religious divide. You, of course, know this as well, but I think we're better with the current situation and that the stats including Tajiks in the Persians article is extremely problematic and erroneous. Note also the slippery slope with the Germans and Ethnic Germans as per the Swiss, Austrians, and Germans. again, I'm not debating whether the Tajiks are Persians or not, but I am debating their inclusion with the Persians of Iran given the circumstances. Tombseye 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, again I know of what you've said. I've known some Tajiks myself and encountered some in Peshawar as well and read up on the subject and I know about Iranica's stance. I don't really think we're in disagreement here. My point is that the Tajiks should have their own article to discuss their differences, which we agree on. As for whether the views of the people matter or not, well I'd have to disagree to some extent there. Although I agree that indigenous views aren't always reliable (given the Pashtun penchant to claim descent from Hebrews etc.), in this case the analogy with the Swiss is very appropriate as Tajiks don't generally identify with Persians in Iran. That alone makes for some relevance here and probably should be noted along with the academic view that Tajiks are simply Persians of Central Asia. At any rate, there isn't any major disagreement here, as the problem is that someone has added the Tajik population to the Persians article which needs to be fixed. Otherwise, I support the view that the Tajiks are, essentially, Central Asian Persians. Tombseye 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So we're going to count the Tajiks twice in Tajiks and Persians? That makes no sense at all. We might as well get rid of the Tajiks article and go for something like the Germans article then. Are you sure you understand what I'm talking about here? I added the Tajiks as a sub-group a long-time in Persians (the subsection of Related sub-groups). I wasn't around for the debate and I'm not debating that section. I'm debating counting Tajiks, in terms of their population stats, TWICE in infoboxes of both articles. That doesn't make any sense at all. Tombseye 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to clarify this some more! The population statistics which relate the population of Tajiks in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc. are being included in the figures for Persians in the infobox. That's what I think is the problem. I have no issue with the Tajiks as a Persian people, but their population STATISTICS should be described and included only in their article and info. box and not again in the Persian people infobox. See this edit I reverted[15]. I think we agree on everything else pretty much. I was never debating the inclusion or mention of Tajiks in the Persian people article, just putting in figures for Tajiks in the infobox. I sure hope we can get on the same page here! Tombseye 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I perhaps should have just included a link to the issue at hand! ;) Tombseye 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

why do you keep undoing my changes???

hey man,

i made some nice improvements to the Hazara page and the Afghan People page.

and you changed them.

why??

how can we role back changes to a previous version??

Afghanistan

As i said in the history pages for that article and others, why not discuss the matter instead of reverting everything i edit, discuss it here or in their talk pages please. --213.113.242.74 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Doroud


Article name in question requires correction!

Duste bessiar azizam Tajik! Cordial congratulations, at this point, for your GREAT work on WIKIPEDIA!! This matter appears a pure matter of differences of pronunciation. Please consider the below carefully! Ghorbane to!

Sepahbod and Sepahsalar are the correct phonetic transcription for the Persian words! In Iran you will hear a distinct "e" , pronounced as in the English word "error"! Turkish native speakers may be inclined to pronounce the words typically: "Sipehbod" and "Sipehseler", in adherence to Turkish pronunciation. To Iranians of pre-revolutionary generations, SEPAHBOD is often affiliated with Sepahbod Zahedi (General Fazlollah Zahedi), after whom numerous streets had been named, in commemoration of his coup against Mossadeq's government in 1953. Sepahbod implies "Major General" in modern Persian language usage! One must note in general that a Persian speaker will not pronounce two consonants following each other, in the Arabic script applied, without an applicable vowel in between. Here it is an "e" as described above. Hence, the Article requires renaming!--Pantherarosa 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense pronouncing it DARI style , while the original and most relevant IRANIAN style is pronunciation with short "e" as in "error". The person who wrote it with "i" in the source you mention is obviously not qualified, with c. 80 Million Iranians pronouncing it "e"! Let's be reasonable here and not allow POV or personal fancy to cloud our judgement. Please do help introducing the native IRANIAN/Persian style, which obviously should be the benchmark for a word ("Sepah") it gave birth to, in the first place.--Pantherarosa 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, neither Savory nor Dari speakers lacking the knowledge of PROPER Persian pronunciation can be considered authorative in this context. Anyhow, i have no leasure persuing this. Keep it as it is, i have been bemused on numerous occasions by Dari accents (though DARI vocabulary is impressive, as it represents purebread Persian). However, any well educated Iranian would merely laugh about this peculiar and "dahati" sounding pronunciation, I'm afraid and we are talking 80 Million and not some minorities who do not know better!--Pantherarosa 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg

Please look at my talk. An admin says that I cannot claim GFDL, so I have to use a different tag. Do you have any suggestions? Genomist 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian couplet

Hi Tajik. With reference to the following lines on your page:

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast,
Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast.
(اَگر فِردؤس بر رُو-ائے زمین اَست،
ہمین اَست-او ہمین اَست-او ہمین اَست۔)

Do you have a reference that attributes them to Babur? My sources indicate that they were written by the poet Amir Khusro. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan, nader shah, kizilbash

Well tadjik, once again i am the IP 213.113.242.74, and have made an account now. I have previously offered to talk about our little revert war in the talk pages, but you have not responded, instead you kept reverting without discussing it. My friend we are on the same side here. --Spahbod 06:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, it saddens me to see you answer me like this, sending warnings and call my edits vandalism, when i offered to discuss the matter in a friendly manner.

My friend is it wrong to show that tajiks are persian? or perhaps you don't agree that tajiks are persian? Please instead of sending warnings discuss the matter before reverting. --Spahbod 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK first why are you screaming? second it says iranian not persian, and in my opinion its too far away from the header and end of the section. Tajik is what the turks called us, why should we call ourself tajik. Instead of naming it persian, the word tajik is mentioned several times. However i still do not understand why you call my edit vandalism! all i did was add persian next to the word tajik and changed sipahsalar to sepahsalar as the article is called, furthermore i "unitaliced" a few words. --Spahbod 12:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Spahbod 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, i had about enough of your personal attacks, all i do is call you my friend, and all you do is sending me warnings and making personal attacks!
I offered you to try discussing the matter, sending me personal attacks is not discussing.
Regarding your last comment, does the encyclopedia of islam say you cannot refer to tajiks as persian? does it once say tajiks are not persian?
If so then all the tajik words from that article should be changed. --Spahbod 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your Expertize is needed

Can you please take a look at this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_literature#PLease_make_NPOV_Edits

There is definitly much POV and biased misninformation. Please tak a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_literature

69.196.164.190

Warning

Stop Vandalizing or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanx

Please contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, unconstructive edits are considered Vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others.

hadi1121

Three-Revert Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Hazara. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. joturner 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash

Because i see you have bigger problems right now with a certain user, i self reverted the article to your last edit. I am not gonna continue the revert war, but once again i ask you to consider my changes and do the necessary changes yourself, and keep in mind that i did not delete any links, all i did was making some words de"italic"ed. Also the afghanistan dari article, obviously the year was wrong, it was 600 BCE instead of 200 CE. Well i hope we do not get engaged in further revert wars. Khoda negahdar. --Spahbod 10:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the Turkish theory

lets discuss it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Turkish_Theory
I waited days for a response, but everyone just ignored it, so i assumed people did not have any objection. anyway, i have sent a message to GrandMaster also, and we can discuss the theory. And historical facts have proven that Azari's, and turks from turkey, cannot possible have be descendents of turks. they are all mostly descendents of pre-existing people before the turkification of the regions. many of the ottoman sultans werent even of turkish blood.Khosrow II 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Hezaar Afsaaneh

Salam baraadar, I am very busy now, but will work on it in the weekend if you wish. But if you want to do it just read the following article: [16] I was about to look for an article on this subject and then I found the above link. It has everything we need. --Ali doostzadeh 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Afghans (Pashtuns, Tajiks, etc) in Canada

hey bro,

a very important piece of info is missing on the Pashtun, Tajik pages regarding how many of them are there in Canada.

I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

And I know for a fact that there is TONS of Afghans in Canada.

I've previously read estimates of 30,000 in Toronto ALONE.

So in Canada I'm guessing there is probably 80,000 Afghans.

Now most of them are from Kabul (assuming), so lets say half are Tajiks and half are Pashtuns.

So my guess is 40,000 Tajiks in Canada. and 40,000 Pashtuns in Canada.

but that is JUST a guess.

We need to find out how many with sources.

Lets try doing that. I think its important. :)

ok, i will discuss first

""Everytime you revert to a previous version (like here), you automatically revert corrected mistakes, too!""

I was aware of that.

And made sure that ONLY the pictures were reverted.

But the map you provided is only linguastic. For instance, Hazaras are included, who are not Tajiks. And also the Persians of Iran, who are also not Tajiks.

I think my map was good. It was from the U.S. government.

Also, what is wrong with the pictures?? here's my reasoning on that: -i put up a better pic of Ahmad Shah Massoud -i put up a picture of a FEMALE ethnic "Tajik"

so what did i do wrong???

Conflict

The conflict ended. My apologies mate, for the hard-on controversy. Odds settled. I guess its the continuation of the civil-war related mentality. All the best.

Azerbaijani people

Please restore the featured article version. If he breaks 3RR, he will be reported. Grandmaster 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He got 3h block as a first offence. Grandmaster 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

History of iran template

I appreciate you naming them in their original name, but i think its better to let them have their international name here. Their real name is already in the articles. I have changed back their name back to original, if you dont agree please let me know. I explained why i changed it again in the templates talk page. --Spahbod 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Minaret of Jam

[17], it says: The minarets are thought to have been built as symbols of Islam's victory.

Perhaps you have other theories to include in the article. --Spahbod 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

Dear friend,

Sorry, but you were mislead to me thinking that I am an admin because as a beginner I was trying to know how to make my personal page. When I found a good example I had copied it to make a template for me. Unfortunately the one I was mirroring was of a real admin: Celestianpower.

If you feel that you need to solve this question, please forward your complaint to a real admin.

Thanks for your time, sorry again and if you need a friend on this community, please feel confortable to count on me.

Brazilian apologies,

Jaguar Negro 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent

Please vote here. Thanks--Zereshk 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might find this useful: [18]. Unfortunately my knowledge is very limited in this regard.--Zereshk 01:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please watch this page and post your public messages on this page so that everybody may have access to it. Thanks --Aminz 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Tabriz rug

The article is being continuously vandalized by this user: Rembranth, his IP address is 68.49.90.60 . he has vandalized it over 5 times now, can you report him, or tell me how i can? please respond here.Khosrow II 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

is there anything we can do? he continues to vandalise and makes some very aggressive posts on various talk pages.Khosrow II 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


which admin would you recomend? and which people are admins? is there a list? thanks.Khosrow II 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seljuks

Hi, please do not manually move articles like that. It messes up the article history. Adam Bishop 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that is probably true, but we do often call them "Seljuk Turks" in English, even if it is redundant. It is possible to move the article, if some redirects are deleted, but I think you should probably discuss it on the talk page first, to figure out the best title (or the title that will be opposed the least...) Adam Bishop 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks et. al.

Hello, sorry for the late response, but I have suddenly gotten quite busy. I'll take a look at the Tajiks page and others when I can. I really want to, at some point fix that page so that it's comparable to the Pashtuns page and perhaps do the same for the Afghanistan article, but I don't have the time I had before. At any rate, I'll try to drop in and make sure vandals aren't allowed to run amock! Tombseye 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Tajik,

Sorry I haven't replied earlier—I was away this past month in Israel. He hasn't appeared to have edited for awhile, let me know if there are any more problems. BTW, don't forget to assume good faith in situations like these. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Medes

Keep an eye on the article Medes. Some reader is putting unsourced information there. --Ali doostzadeh 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seljuqs

Thanks for the comment. Although the Seljuq ruling class was Persianified to a large extent and lost its Turkic character, their victory enabled a large number of Oghuz nomadic tribes to come in and these Oghuz tribes were less refined and thus had Turkic culture. But the city and urban and farming populations remained Iranians before the Mongols as these tribes were not urban nor sedentary. The nomadic Oghuz were more migratory tribes and raided anatolia. You are right the bulk of Turkification occured in the era between Mongol to Qajar era. But it is hard to give percentages since our sources are not as much as it should be. Even the people of Tabriz before the Safavids spoke a Persian dialect as did the people of Ardabil. Also Ganja was predominantely Kurdish before the Safavids. Shervan also was not Turkic before the Safavids. By the way I am wondering why this source is not mentioned in the population part: [19] [20]. The Turkic speaking population of Iran is no more than 20% and this can be proven by provincial analysis as well as statistics I mentioned. I am wondering why the lower range of 12 million(which is probably the most correct) is not included? Also another issue is that the republic of Azerbaijan registers a large number of Talysh/Kurds/Lezgis as "Azerbaijani" Turkic speaker. For example the USSR census of 1926 registers 77,026 Talysh in Azerbaijan. But the current government claims 80,000! Imagine in a span of 80 years, only 3000 Talysh have been added to the total population. Either there is a strong assimilist policy or someone is making things up. Actually the number of talysh in Lenkoran, Jalil Abaad, Lerik..and all the villages is more than 80,0000. Although the issue is not worth pursuing but I know Uzbekistan is doing the same to Tajiks who number at least 4-5 million. By the way I will mention the one thousands and one nights soon..sorry for the delay. --Ali doostzadeh 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Dorood

آقا اگر میشود یک ای-میل به من بزنید. ای-میل من در صفحه ام است. سپاسگزارم. --Ali doostzadeh 05:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent edit in Persian language

There's no need to lecture me about concepts of correctness of the English naming conventions for فارسی. I understand the situation. You may not like the fact that ISO 639-3 uses the word Farsi, but it doesn't change the fact that 'Eastern Persian' and 'Western Persian' are not the names of ISO 639-3 pes and prs. Please don't think this is an 'Us' vs. 'Them' situation. I am not in the 'Farsi' camp. I am not in the 'Persian' camp. I have no preference either way. But I think it's not the wisest thing to state in the article an incorrect notion: that prs is called Eastern Persian and pes is called Western Persian in the standard. This would be like stating that U+06CC is called ARABIC LETTER PERSIAN YEH. We can continue this discussion on the article's talk page. –jonsafari 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dorood

Agar mitoni tamami maghalat daneshmandan "List of Iranian scientists" rou ezafeh kon be "watchlist" khudet. Yek pesareh bikar Arab hast ke har rooz baa chandin IP vaa username mokhatalef be magahlat daneshmandan Farsi va Irani mire, vaa ethenicty in daneshmandan rou be muslim, Arab vaa Turk avaz mikone. --Mardavich 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

see here: [21] Khosrow II 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Also please look at Khosrow's message above. --Ali doostzadeh 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Timur

I know you're right in what you say, I was just trying to avoid an edit war. I have read a good amount of books on Timur which by and large make good use of that Turkic language, and if that small snippet prevents an edit war I think we should stick with it.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism and 3RR

Hi, I got your request for admin assistance. I'm afraid I'm going to have to suggest in this case you may want to ask another admin - I'm going out of town for about 3 days starting tomorrow morning (well, today since it's past midnight). I probably won't be on very much, if at all, during that time, and doubt I'll have a chance to review these actions before I leave. (Especially considering I've never blocked anyone for 3RR before, I'm a new admin just this week, and would have to go over all the rules to make sure I'm doing it right). So you'll probably want to ask someone else, or I won't get to it for several days. Sorry about that. I hope I can help you out more in the future. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, if a user is actively violating 3RR, please post a request to WP:AN/3RR. If a page needs to be protected due to active vandalism or editing disputes, please post to WP:RFPP. Thanks, Tangotango 02:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Timur

Hi Tājīk,

First off, it's not "vandalism". This is vandalism. Secondly, you shouldn't be giving other users {{test4im}} in content disputes, try {{3RR2}}. I hope you take my advice as constructive criticism and not as a scolding or something like that. Note that Britannica seems to say he was "Turkic". A good compromise might mentioning that as well in the article. Note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (WP:V) Anyways, I see you've already reported him at WP:AN/3RR. I'll keep an eye on the article to see if the edit war continues. :)

!خداحافظ
Khoikhoi 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It really is time to archive your talk page.

Qaumi Tarana

You have edited Qaumi Tarana to say that the song is in Persian and not Urdu. In fact, this song is written in Urdu so Persianized that only one word is not of Persian/Arabic origin. Nevertheless, the song is still considered Urdu because it of that one little word, and the fact that the song is always sung in Urdu (difference between short a). Khuda hafiz --Mar de Sin Speak up! 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But the Urdu revert I made alway stated that it was in Persianized Urdu with only one Hindustani word. I'll see if that can be stressed some more. And for the letter "a", I mean the short a, like "mard" which is pronounced mærd in persian but murd in Urdu. All the short "a"s are pronounced differently in these languages, which is one of the biggest differences. And I also understand that the letter qaaf can be pronounce ghain in Persian, but that never happens in Urdu, which the almost-Persian song is pronounced in. Thanks-Mar de Sin Speak up! 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. خدا حافظ --Mar de Sin Speak up! 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Turkic Peoples article

You made some good points in the discussion page, but can I get the sources for your information? I am very interested to learn more. Thanks.Khosrow II 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this report about the abuse of barefact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Barefact

Stop moving pages if you can't do it right

I have reverted your move of Shahnameh. You haven't made your case about the proper name to put in the article slot--just because it can be written the way you wrote it doesn't mean it should be the article title. But more importantly, if you can't learn to fix the indexing sort keys and double redirects (which you are reminded to do when you make a move), just keep your fingers off that "Move" button. Gene Nygaard 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish people

Helo Tajik, please see my comments on User_talk:Khoikhoi and Talk:Kurdish people - the history section is mostly a fiction and they remove POV and cleanup tags whenever I had added them. I suggest that people who have time and expertise work hard to fix that article and make it accurate. I have tried but was always attacked. Khorshid 03:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sumerians

Hi,

The sentence about "...fighting Sumerians, etc." is from Britannica.

They have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.[22]

Cheers. Heja Helweda 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They are also considered to be descendants of non-Aryan Hurrians who were from a Caucasian stock. Median ancestry theory was developed mainly in 19th and early 20th century by Iranologists such as McKenzie and Minorsky. Nowadays the academics are leaning more toward Hurrians, whose langauge was replaced by Aryan around 800 BC. Traces of old Hurrian (non-Iranian) language can still be found in Kurdish ergative structure. For more info. on this issue, please refer to the following papers
A. Arnaiz-Villena , J. Martinez-Laso, J. Alonso-Garcia, The correlation Between Languages and Genes: The Usko-Mediterranean Peoples, Human Immunology, vol.62, p.1057, 2001
A. Arnaiz-Villena, E. Gomez-Casado, J. Martinez-Laso, Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA distribution and a historic perspective, Tissue Antigens, vol.60, p. 117, 2002
Heja Helweda 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tajik grammar

Perhaps I should make it more clear, the page Tajik grammar reflects the standard as spoken in Tajikistan. It does not mean to infer that all peoples self-identifying as Tajiks speak this variety. I am basing the article on reliable sources. I have made this more clear, could you outline the "POV" issues you see on the talk page. Thanks - FrancisTyers · 11:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mention in the edit summary, this is the transliteration scheme used by the books I am citing. - FrancisTyers · 11:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For the grammar of the standard Tajik language as spoken in Tajikistan, the Tajik Persian Reference Grammar by John Perry is an authoratative source. Please do not continue to revert. Do you speak the language as spoken in Tajikistan? For one, your replacement of -i by -e is wrong. In the Tajik standard they are reversed. - FrancisTyers · 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I can understand Tajik as I am both in discussion with a Tajik compañero in Isfara and I have access to resources published regarding [and in] the Tajik language. Do you? Needless to say, ман англис ҳастам -- I hope you don't hold it against me. :) - FrancisTyers · 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are unwilling to consult authoratative sources and enter into a dialogue concerning the content of the page. I will not edit war with you, but I hope that your edits do not prevent an improvement in the amount of information that can be found on the page. It is sad that you are not interested in other writing systems :( it is also sad that you would call me ignorant -- especially after I made no such grandiose claims. :( - FrancisTyers · 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan page

Here are Veriaamiri's edits, which have not been reverted. It appears that you made several edits to the article however, so I don't want to undo your edits as well. Perhaps you could review them and fix the problems? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "Disputed" Tag on Rahman Baba

Hi, I have added three links to the bottom of the article which can clarify most of the material in this article, hence can provide decent credibility to it. After doing so I removed the tag. If you are comfortable with it then its OK otherwise can you please outline the specific part of the article which is bothering you? I hope you appreciate the fact that most of what s written about him comes from stories that passed from one generation to another. --Marwatt 02:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tajik/Archive_1&oldid=1147964025"