Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cabolitae (talk | contribs) at 00:12, 13 June 2010 (→Re:template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Demographics of Kabul province

The population of Kabul province in 2006 was roughly 2,425,067. Here is a quote from Kabul' Provincial Profile - MRRD

"Around 19% of the population of Kabul lives in rural districts while 81% lives in urban areas. Around 51% of the population is male and 49% is female. Pashtu is spoken by around sixty percent of the population and Dari is spoken by around forty percent. A small number of people located in 5 villages speaks Pashaie."

Lets use the official numbers and percentages in wikipedia (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Afghan Mellat

It makes sense to call Afghan Mellat Party a self declared Socialist pary, but why is it ethnocentric? You cannot just use another person's personal views as your source. You are very welcome to visit the party's website and read their manifesto/agenda/mission statement. You can read Farsi/Dari. Here is Afghan Mellat's مرامنامه in Dari .

I will delete the "Ethnocentrism" word from the infobox, but will keep the (self-declared Socialism and Social democracy) part. It is an encyclopedia/wikipedia and your informations should be based on facts not personal opinions - specially when you can. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedians should try to read Misplaced Pages's policy regarding Neutral point of view

Right now there is no way we can call this a neutral article. For more information please read:

• Neutrality disputes and handling
  • Neutrality and verifiability

I will quote the first paragraph from Neutrality and Verifiability "A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral."

Here is another quote from the same place:

"Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles." and another interesting point that is mentioned there, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited."

The policy can be read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

Salam

Welcome back. I will be back in the beginning of October but please make sure to follow guidelines. Piruz Baashid! --Nepaheshgar 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

The September 2008 WikiProject Films coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of candidates. Additionally, we are keeping nominations open during the voting period, in case any additional editors wish to nominate themselves. Please vote here by September 28!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Taj language order

Thanks for being such a pleasant wiki-editor. I appreciate it. -nemonoman (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Aurangzeb. I have absolutely given up, it's such a mess. Perhaps you'd have better luck. --nemonoman (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Happy to see you again in Misplaced Pages--Larno (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Work work!

We need to team up on some more articles, the Afghan articles could use tons of improvement. --Enzuru 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your limitation, so if anyone is trying to pick fights, just tell me. Pashtuns are stubborn, we generally win edit wars (I've never lost one so far, though I did concede like two because I realized I was wrong). --Enzuru 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a practicing Shi'a Muslimah. There aren't many Shi'a Pashtuns (we are mainly concentrated in Kabul and Peshawar) but I am one of them! --Enzuru 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Are you Usuli? --Enzuru 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent

I very much like what you did with the demonym in the infobox on Afghanistan. It is definitely more clear than that solution on which everyone had reached a stalemate. Cheers and happy editing! Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tājik (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Persianate Society

If you have time, can you check the article. It needed some editing and someone is doing it. But some of the quotes were removed, and I think it is better to summarize them where possible. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. Tājik (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Qizilbash

Thanks for your comments about my edit to the Qizilbash article. If you are quoting from a source it should be in quotes. I am not discussing what the source says, I am talking about "best usage" in a Misplaced Pages article. This is the lead section of a Misplaced Pages article. The lead should avoid quotations and be a brief summary of the content of the article and state the importance of the topic. See Misplaced Pages:Lead_section. --Bejnar (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer "extremist", then you should delete "militant". Both are not necessary, and it gives a POV tone to the sentence.--Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Status of Persian

Dear Tajik you removed Persian as official in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. That is correct when you only regard the national official language. Seemingly Uzbekistan recognizes Tajiki as a regional language and the univesity of Samarkand teaches it and also regulates it somehow. Turkmenistan seemingly recognized Dari as a regional language. In Afghanistan Dari was at times co-official and at times repressed. I do not know the exact situation now, although still the Pashtun dominate Afghanistan--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Dear Tajik are you going to adress these questions? If not I suggest to revert your edits back on the Persian language. It is of no use to minimize the extent of Persian language--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

since you are German citizen from Afghanistan

Hello. Since you are a German citizen from Afghanistan, I thought these two articles might be of interest to you:

• Afghanistan–Germany relations
• Afghans in Germany

Uh oh!

Someone brought up to an administrator that I might be a sockpuppet of you! The administrator said it wasn't true because we were in different countries. --Enzuru 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Where? Tājik (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Right here! --Enzuru 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That's User:NisarKand. He believes that everyone who opposes him is a sockpuppet. He is a banned user. Do not worry about him. Tājik (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of notable Tajiks

Please visit Talk:Tajiks#List of Tajiks: it seems to have been waiting for your verdict since January 2007. There are basically two options: (a) incorporate the list as a separate section in Tajiks or (b) create a new List of notable Tajiks (linking to it from Tajiks). Once we decide on either of these options, interested editors can start refining the lists -- but I think a decision is needed. What's your view? Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tajik

The issue is, as I've pointed out before, you sometimes try to minimize the differences between these groups in a way that I feel constitutes Pan-Iranism. I agree, in a historical context they may have not been so different, but as for as anthropologists are concerned today, they are a separate group, and the Tajiks of Afghanistan and elsewhere are a single group, hence the same name. I am going to add a source for my statement and put it back in, but perhaps we could reword it together. --Enzuru 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The best thing we can do is depend on contemporary sources. So I am going to try to start doing that with whatever I put into the article. I have access to Britannica, so if you would like, I can paste material of it to you through e-mail, if you have any articles you want to see. --Enzuru 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Of course, we could try to improve the wording of the intro. But saying that "Tajiks are a distinct group from other Persian-speakers" is not really correct. I can send you the article "Tajik" from the Encyclopaedia of Islam (written by C.E. Bosworth). The article's intro is:

• "... TĀDJĪK, the later form of a word Tāzīk or Tāžīk used in the Iranian and Turkish worlds. In Islamic usage, it eventually came to designate the Persians, as opposed to the Turks. ..."

The most important part of the article, however, is:

• "... In Afghānistān, to the present day, it is the Persian-speaking, traditionally sedentary, and in no way tribally-bound population that is called Tādjīk. As a self-designation this term, which earlier on had been more or less pejorative, has become acceptable during the last twenty years, particularly as a conscious and comprehensive delimitation of Persian-speaking Afghāns. The self-designation of Persian-speakers in Afghānistān had been for a long time most commonly Fārsīwān, Fārsībān, or Fārsīgū(y). However, even today Tādjīk does not comprise all Persian-speaking groups in Afghānistān; it has obviously preserved a socio-cultural semantic component. The Uzbeks in northern Afghānistān, mostly bilingual and thus also Persianspeaking, consider themselves, as can be expected, clearly distinct from the Tādjīk, and so do the Persianspeaking Shī'ī Hazāra and some other tribes. Until today, under the influence of the ethnographers, a meaning of the term Tādjīk has been preserved in scholarly literature on regions outside the Republic of Tajikistan, one which corresponds closely to the concept of the Russian colonial administration. This may be helpful as a convention among scholars, but has little to do with the historical and the modern meanings of the term and the self-understanding of the Tādjīk. ..."

Your claim that my edit was "Pan-Iranist" is quite unfair. One could flip the coint and say that your edit is "anti-Persian" and "propagation of Soviet colonial models". But that would be wrong and unfair as well. Tājik (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Even today Tādjīk does not comprise all Persian-speaking groups in Afghānistān, this is precisely my belief. Of course they don't! Look at groups like the Hazara or even the native speaking Dari Pashtuns. In fact, my tribe the Muhammadzai have a close relationship with Dari. To be honest, I don't see where we are disagreeing here. But I apologize if you found my Pan-Iranist comment rude. As far as your Encyclopedia Islam quote, it does seem to prove that this is a recent innovation. And that should be stated! But by no means should it be stated that in a modern context that these groups are considered the same thing. In fact, you might want to go ahead and put into the article that the phrase Tajik in Afghanistan is a recent innovation. But, in the end, we have to stick and expand about how it is understood in modern terms. For now, I will leave out the but distinct part, I haven't been able to find a source for it. --Enzuru 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

From your points, I think you are right about this. Perhaps we should work on moving Tajik to the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan and turn this into an article about etymology? You should talk to other Persian and Afghani editors to see their views on this. --Enzuru 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Twelve Imams

While that is a good point, the reason we combined them was essentially two reasons: to give both the Turkish and Arabic Shi'a groups equal footing (for example, we are using Alevi pictures), and second and more importantly, we tried to eliminate as many columns as we could. Too many columns is bad, so as you can see, we went out of our way to combine anything that was even slightly related. --Enzuru 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Persians, Tajiks, Central Asia

I have responded on my talk page. Hope you don't mind. --Zlerman (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Persian speaking people of Iran

I had a very superficial glance at this article to get the drift of things. The infobox should be renamed to reflect the full title of the article -- not just generically "Persian speaking people". Furthermore, how do we interpret the country numbers in the infobox? What does "Tajikistan 31,000" actually mean? What does "UK 275,000" mean? Is this "Iranians" only (as the article title implies) or is it "Persian speakers" of all origins (as the infobox title implies)? I am sure you have the answers for that, but from the outside it is not very clear. --Zlerman (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You replied on my talk page: "RE Persian-speakers of Iran: Hi Zlerman. To be honest: I have no clue. Some users simply copied that infobox from a previous version of Persian people. I believe that "Persian-speakers of Iran" should be defined as "people speaking Persian as their first language", nothing more and nothing less. I really do not know what the other numbers say. Cheers. Tājik (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

Quite frankly, if this is the state of our knowledge, I would hesitate to go ahead with the major changes you are contemplating without much more careful thinking, planning, and discussion among editors. You mentioned the Encyclopedia of Islam article as an example of what Tajiks should become like (you called it a "solely etymological" article). I do not have access to Encyclopedia of Islam. Can you give me a link to this article or alternatively send me an electronic file with the text of the article? My e-mail is on User:Zlerman. This will help me enormously to understand what you are aiming to achieve. Problem solved. Regards. --Zlerman (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your latest on my talk page. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• While thinking about your proposal for a new classification of Persian people, I find that I need your views on the division between Persian-speakers of Iran and Iranian peoples. The two articles are different in format and style. Are they different in substance? Do you think both should be kept as separate articles, or perhaps they should be combined into one? I get a nagging feeling of tautology when I read the title "Persian-speakers of Iran".
• On the subject of "Persian-speakers of Central Asia" as a replacement for Tajiks, please read the broad definition of Central Asia in this article. It covers practically everything that the article Tajiks covers in its present form, including Afghanistan and Western China. Given this definition of Central Asia, can we split between Persian-speakers of Afghanistan and Persian-speakers of "Central Asia"? Or am I missing something in your typology?

Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your example with "German" vs "Germanic" and "English" vs "Germanic" is very helpful, of course. But you yourself use the term "Iranic" in your reply to my question. Had the article been called "Iranic people", there would have been no problem. But "Iranian" sounds like a direct adjective for Iran: we have Iranian cuisine and even "Iranian kabab" in one of the food articles. I imagine "Iranian people" and "Iranian languages" is the universally accepted terminology in the sense of "Iranic" as you raise it in your reply, and this is unchangeable, correct? --Zlerman (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Light-haired Tajiks"

In the article Tajiks please check the following sentence: "Light hair and eyes are relatively common, particularly in northern regions such as Badakhshan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and western China." Is this statement correct, or does it apply only to Badakhshan, as PakistaniNisar suggests in his recent edits? Thanks, --Zlerman (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The user is correct. Fair complexions are usually (!) limited to isolated regions in the mountains and valleys. Badakhshan is such an isolated region. Tājik (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I accepted PakistaniNisar's position yesterday, after a long search through the history of the article (see my note on his talk page). But now Kingturtle seems to disagree: let's hope eventually the text will settle down to the correct version. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And now also Scythian77 disagrees (08:29)... --Zlerman (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scroll boxes

I see that you don't like scroll boxes in Misplaced Pages articles either. See Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Scrolling_lists for current policy. For some odd reason it is better to cite policy than good solid reasoning. TenOfAllTrades said on 11 December 2007 "There was a discussion on the Village Pump a while ago that led to a consensus not to use scrolling reference boxes in articles (feel free to use them in your userspace, if you like)." I didn't find the Village Pump discussion, but other discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/Archive_7#scroll_box_for_references and Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_18#Scrolling_Reference_List. I am surprised that reflist4 still works. --Bejnar (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"سید اکرام الدین " طاهری

Can you read this? http://koofi.net/Political_Analist/Naqsh_Junasiyan..htm It is supposed to be about the renaming of Kabul University. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Atashgah of Baku

Atashgah of Baku

http://en.wikipedia.org/Atashgah_of_Baku

You are needed here. Despite the abundance of Local Azeri Zoroastrian accounts, some Indians push still theire POV--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

arab speaking needed

hi tajik. do you know of any arabic speaking non-anti-persian user or admin of wikipedia? the articles on avvecina, farabi, .. and most of persian scholars on ar.wikipedia are being changed regularly and now, as opposed to earlier versions, do not refer to them as persian and even the persian categories coming at the bottom of articles have been removed. the changes come from multiple user and ip addresses from egypt i guess. if you know of someone who can fix these things i will appreciate.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian-speakers of Afghanistan

Do you want to start on this article? Do you think we could manage to get it started? --Enzuru 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to find a correct title (I need to make sure this phrase is used in Britannica or Iranica) and then start on it using that source. Any suggestions? --Enzuru 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge you not to do it piecemeal. We already have Persian-speakers of Iran and there are conceptual problems with that article. I think that before creating another "Persian-speakers" article in the group we need to discuss in detail what we are going to do with the existing content in Tajiks, what new articles will be created to replace it, and how the information is going to be apportioned. Perhaps this can be done in the form of drafts in userspace sandboxes for purposes of discussion and evaluation. Given the heat and flames that surround Tajiks, I am not sure that the piecemeal approach with ad hoc creation of "Persian-speakers" will help. --Zlerman (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page adopting the sandbox approach. This is excellent. You may remember that I have previously expressed my concerns about the term "Central Asia", because of the very fuzzy and ambiguous definition of this region. If you look in the latest List of cuisines, for instance, you will see that Afghanistan is treated as part of Central Asia -- and there are many other sources that do likewise. This terminological complication will need to be considered and allowed for if you develop Persian-speakers of Central Asia. I look forward to reading the sandbox versions. --Zlerman (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Iran, Afghanistan, and even South-East Asia are all fine with me (probably because I know so little about them). With regard to Central Asia, however, I think you will need to poll the opinions of the Tajikistan community on WikiProject Tajikistan and also on WikiProject Central Asia. You have to ask them how they are going to react to being classified as Persian-speakers of Central Asia -- instead of Tajiks. Their national sensitivities are not less important than those of Tajiks in Afghanistan and Iran. Just off the top of my head: perhaps we should have Tajiks of Central Asia (with a redirect from Persian-speakers of Central Asia). --Zlerman (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The main point of my comment above is not Tajiks of Central Asia: this was just a half-baked afterthought. The main point is the need to put the suggestion for Persian-speakers of Central Asia up for discussion on the relevant WikiProjects: Tajikistan and Central Asia. I hope you agree to that. Also, if you don't mind my saying so, we probably need to expand our horizon beyond Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica and include sources from other cultural and ethnic domains to decide on this potentially sensitive issue. But again, this is an aside: the main point is to have a discussion on Tajikistan and Central Asia projects about the name of the article. Is this acceptable? --Zlerman (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You rightly say on my talk page, "I have nothing against other sources, but we should stick to the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam, because these two scholastic sources are the two most important and most trusted standard reference works of Iranian studies." This is precisely the point: I guess what I am saying is that when talking about the "Tajiks of Central Asia" (don't take me literally on this phrase) we probably need to go beyond Iranian studies. There is a voluminous Russian literature, for instance, on these peoples since neolithic times. As to the term "Persian-speakers" (another aside from me), please bear in mind that the Constitution of Tajikistan defines their language as "the Tajik language", and so "Tajik-speakers of Central Asia" may be equally valid. But I think we can stop at this stage and see how the sandbox versions develop. Regards. --Zlerman (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the three articles should be merged unto one under Persian speakers. Tajik/Persian are the same language and same culture. But if they are to be separated Tajiks of Central Asia should also include Tajiks in Uzbekistan who according to unofficial numbers vary between 20-40% of Uzbekistan's population. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have two overall articles: Persian people and Persian language. What we need is specific articles about Persian-speakers in certain regions and countries. Persian-speakers of Iran is an informative article. Based on that article, we also need Persian-speakers of Afghanistan, Persian-speakers of Central Asia, and Persian-speakers of South Asia. Tājik (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Pashtun Persian-speakers have little to nothing in common with Persian-speakers in Iran. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anatolian Turkish

Anatolian Turkish has absolutely no relevance in this article. It is a different language, and belongs to the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages. The difference is as big as between German and English. Besides that, the modern Anatolian language was developed in the 20th century due to Ataturk's language reform. Tājik (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you delete Anatolian Turkish translation, why didn't you delete Hungarian translation. Is it relevant?--Saltinbas (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajiks in Kyrgyzstan

I am going over the population censuses of the Central Asian countries to see where we find Tajiks outside Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In Kyrgyzstan (the 1999 census), I see 43,000 Tajiks and also 52,000 Dungans and 47,000 Uygurs (out of about 5 million total population). Now, as far as I understand, Dungans and Uygurs are not Persian-speakers. So who exactly are the Tajiks of western China? Where do you suggest I look to find systematic information about them? --Zlerman (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajiks of China are not Persian-speakers and they are distinct from "Tajiks". They are speakers of East Iranian languages. Tājik (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so where do you plan to fit the Tajiks of China in your proposed scheme of Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia? How will they be reflected, if they are called Tajiks but are not part of the Persian-speaking category? Or am I missing some nuances here? --Zlerman (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly one of the reasons why I want to create those article. The Tajiks of China will be called what they are called in China: "Tajiks". However, this has to be explained in the etymological article "Tajik". The Persian-speakers of Afghanistan who are also known as "Tajiks" are ethnically and linguistically distinct from the "Tajiks of China". The problem is: although Persians in Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia speak the same language and consider themselves part of the same cultrue and history, they are known by many different names: Persian, Tajik, Farsiwan, Ajam, Sart, Irani, etc. At the same time, a totally distinct ethnci group - the Sariqoli- and Wakhi-speakers of China - are also known as "Tajiks". It's a big mess. And what about the "Tajiks of Kyrgyzstan"? Are they really Persian-speakers or are they part of the Sariqoli-/Wakhi group (Pamiri languages)? Tājik (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Overhauls to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Afghanistan

I've made huge overhauls to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Afghanistan. I'd love your help, can you add yourself as an active member here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Afghanistan/Members. --Enzuru 03:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajiks in China have become Pamiris in China

Please check what User:Banigul is doing to Tajiks in China. --Zlerman (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DFS454 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Khalilullah Khalili

Did you actually look at those citations that you restored in the Khalilullah Khalili article and my discussion of them on the talk page? For starters, one of them has no title, no author and no page number. --Bejnar (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. But please do not restore the claim that he belonged to the Safi tribe as long as the dispute is not over. Regards. Tājik (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are good sources for his Safi origins, and even 84.59.202.75 agreed. The disagreement was about what Safi meant. 84.59.202.75 presented no sources for the Tajik orgin of Safi, while the tribal origin has sources back before 1700. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird person

Make sure to refute these claims here, if you wish to do so. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Behnam?!

Alishah was really the Behnam guy?! I thought he was just kinda slow, I didn't think he had any bad intentions. I even gave him an award because I thought he was trying very hard to learn Misplaced Pages policies, I feel really bad now. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

lol cool, "Southern Pashtuns" are people of the day, unless they don't update it daily. I'm having trouble enough convincing Pashtuns of Shi'a Islam! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review of Afghanistan

As you've been a major contributor to this article, you may be interested to know that == Good article reassessment for Afghanistan == Afghanistan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wusun

Dear Tajik: Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you - but I have not been well. It looks as if I will probably have to go soon for an operation to my spine as some vertebrae have collapsed and are pressing on the spinal cord - very painful and crippling! Anyway, I made a few minor changes this morning to some of the more offensive material in the section on the physical descriptions of the Wusun. Please let me know what you think. Much more work needs to be done to bring the article up to standard, though. Will try to get back to it when I can. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct

Your convention for the naming is better.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Dont get me wrong... I actually agree with you that the content is to long... Just give me some time to shorten it... because I believe that there is some important information in there... If you are still unsatisfied afterwards then let me know :D!. Turco85 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Can you please point me to these insults? Khoikhoi 20:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tajiks in China: a word of explanation?

Perhaps a short explanation about "Tajiks in China" should be added for the uninitiated in Tajiks#China. I personally find the situation confusing. --Zlerman (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I am slowly beginning to grasp the complexities of the "Tajiks in China". It is for this reason that, in my opinion, you should add one or two sentences under Tajiks#China explaining how these "Tajiks" are different from Persian-speaking Tajiks. Your authoritative statement will block untutored editors from inserting incorrect information into the China section of Tajiks in the future. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

minor edits

Hi,

Before doing minor edits (like this), please look at the history. Minor edits on a vandalized version is useless. Alefbe (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Nowruz

Afghanistan Map

That map unfortunately is not accurate either. It lacks scores of languages. It does not even list Tirahi, Tangshewi, etc. As an academic linguistics map, it simply is not detailed enough. Here are two academic maps:

http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/Iranpeoples.gif

http://www.indiana.edu/~afghan/maps/afghanistan_ethnolinguistic_map_1997.jpg

The map you source is from 1985 and made by the former communist government of Afghanistan and thus I have to question its accuracy. It is not made by linguists and Pashto is for sure under represented. Although, I will be making changes to the Afghanistan map to show more bilingual areas with Pashto and Dari, etc soon. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed his map quite a lot from the original. I will make more changes though so Afghanistan matches the ones I sourced better. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will give precedence to the maps shown on the academic sources, but I will look at the other map in making any edits. Maps on academic sites do take precedence over government ones. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Iranica Map link

I will be using that map now to make changes to the Afghanistan part of the map. The Iranica map is much much better than the Communist government map. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Iranica map and the Afghan map don't contradict each-other. The Iranica map is about the ethnic groups, not exacly the languages, and it's based on Dupree's work around 1970. Many of Pashtuns are nowadays Persian-speaking and some areas with Pashtun amjority can have a Persian-speaking majority (Pashtun majority doesn't necessarily mean Pashto-speaking majority). Alefbe (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well bilingualism is going to be common. In any event, the map would be a mess if it included Persian bilingualism in Iran and Afghanistan. The whole map would have to me hatch marked and thus unreadable. One can assume much of Iran is bilingual in Persian as well. Azalea pomp (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What I mentioned, about Pashtuns and Pashto, wasn't about bilingualism (I meant their first language). For a sizable population of Pashtuns, the first language is Persian, not Pashto (they are counted as Pashtun, based on their paternal ancestry, not based on their language). That's the main source of the difference between the Iranica map and the Afghan linguistic map. Alefbe (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of Pashtuns who speak Persian as their first language. Wasn't the late King, M. Zahir Shah a Persian speaking Pashtun? I still need an academic source which claims this though. The Afghan map from 1985 is still missing many many languages (where are the Pamir languages?!) which makes me question its accuracy. The maps I found on academic sites (including the Iranica map) are more accurate. Academic material always trumps government material for wikipedia. Can you give me an academic source which states that Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan and those on the border with Iran are Persian first languages speakers? Linguistically, Afghanistan is heavily lacking in research though. Pashto dialect studies in Afghanistan are woefully thin. I will likely have to hatch mark the border areas of Iran and Afghanistan to show bilingualism. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will have an updated map in a few hours or more. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New section on Iranian languages talk page

Check out the new section about the map. Thanks Azalea pomp (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtuns on Iranian peoples

Could you join us here: , thanks! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashto language

Hi. In your last revision of Pashto language some of the edits are not constructive, and I restored the previous version. Normally before such a bold change to an article, as you did with Pashto language, it is considered important and polite to explain why you feel that the material is incorrect or inappropriate for the article. Massagetae (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

دعوت به انجمن فارسی

سلام. ما در انجمن فارسی‌مان کسی که فارسی تاجیکی بداند کم داریم. خوشحال می‌شوم به انجمن ما بپیوندید و به پرسش‌هایی که در مورد این گویش فارسی داریم پاسخ بدهید. اگر کس دیگری را نیز می‌شناسید لطفن دعوت کنید. پیشاپیش سپاس‌گزارم. --Alijsh (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct

Please see this article in Iranica . I think I will rename that page. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bally, salaam

Hi, Tajik. Nice to see you editing again. I was just talking about you, not really an issue that will interest you, but it's my most recent edits. Keep up the good work editing articles on Central Asia, but stop thinking of Iranica as so authorative!!!!!!! Salaam, --KP Botany (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation request, please

Greetings Mr. Tajik,

Could you kindly help me translate these two passages into the splendid Pashto language? Please.

"The Second Coming of Jesus will take place on the Last Day when He descends from heaven to judge the world: the righteous will receive eternal life, while the wicked will be eternally condemned".

"Salvation is given by the grace of God through faith. Believers must rely on the Holy Spirit to pursue holiness, to honour God, and to love humanity".

Your help would be Appreciated very much, Thankyou. (In return, I can help you translate your favourite article into the Chinese language). --A-eng (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Shi'a Islam among Iranian peoples

While we still need to continue the issue of classifying Persian-speaking peoples in Afghanistan, another idea came to me recently. We should have an article about Shi'a Islam among Iranian peoples. We can go into very important parts of history, for Twelvers the arrival of I believe Imam Ali al-Ridha in Iran and Afghanistan, and the Safavid Empire, and for Ismaili Alamut, the Fatimid Dawah to Hazara and Tajiks in Afghanistan/Tajikistan by Nasir i-Khusraw (today Nizari Ismailiyya from these areas are called Nasiriyya after him as opposed to the Satpanthi you find in South Asia), and to Pashtuns from the short lived Multan Empire. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

that is a good idea for an article. It can start with Salman Farsi.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kabul

Take a look at the recent edit history and edits by User:119.73.2.116 (and other IPs that he uses). Alefbe (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Persian people

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've temporariy re-added the tags to the aforementioned article, as they are legitimate concerns. You might want to consult WP:3O if discussion on the article's talk page fails to resolve the dispute. Cheers, –Juliancolton |  14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I will have a look at it. Tajik (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IR-AFG

Please do not remove whole articles as this is considered vandalism, if you have anything to add or edit please feel free to edit but removing pages are valid. cheers

Our new editor

It seems everytime I notice a new editor editing the articles pertaining to Afghanistan, they tend more or not, to believe in disqualified race theory, folk legends, and paranormal origins for Pashtuns. It has becoming rather frustrating. When will we be getting an editor who can actually improve articles relating to Afghanistan? Every new editor tends to favour Pashtunization of all Afghanistan-related articles as well. --Afghana 07:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I would keep you updated on our friend. And yes they are talking about spreading awareness of "white" Pashtuns. *blinks* --Afghana 11:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it honestly possible that User:Kurdo777 is Beh-nam or all those other puppets? That makes no sense. He had extensively edited articles relating to Kurds: none of the other editors in hand did that! This doesn't seem right. --Afghana 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, if you really are running all these sock puppets, you're extremely uncoordinated and oppose yourself on many issues, meaning you've done such a good job at hiding that you've impeded your own goals. The entire thing seems odd. --Afghana 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pashto langauge

I have left my comment on the talk page. Might I remind you that as per the terms of your unblock, you are required to discuss content reversions on their talk page. I noted a few instances where you failed to do so: twice on Meydan Shahr and once on Kapisa Province. Please be mindful that if you violate the terms outlined by Coren, you may be blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you as an outside observer the edits to Meydan Shar and Kapisa Province were not reversions of vandalism or bad faith edits. It's apparent that Massagetae wholeheartedly believes his version is accurate, which throws this into the field of content disputes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pashto & Kabuli

Hello Tajik. I realize the term is ambiguous which is why I added a footnote for it. If you give me the URL for Encyclopaedia Iranica's article, I can add it in the footnote. Also, I am not only using the Census of India but a source from the GRN, which I have just recently added. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. After I just checked the article, I found out that User:Massagetae found another reference to support the inclusion of "Kabuli" in the lead. I think that it would be best to get the opinions of other editors on the issue before making a final decision. I personally am not hidebound to keep the term in the article. However, if it is of merit to keep it in the article, I am okay with that too. Best wishes, Anupam 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted your contribution?

Copied reply: Tajik, there is/was no edit war on that page; I was simply removing vandalism from a new user due to a recent news event. I'm sorry if I deleted something that you put in, and as the page is semi-protected you can still make whatever change you wanted. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Greater Iran

I tried fixing around with it, but since you create it, can you take a look. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maidan Shar

I have given you 2 government sources in the discussion page of Maidan Shar article. One of these sources is the official website of Wardag Province. Still, I have not deleted the Persion translation of the name because 15% of the district are Persian speakers and they call it Maydan Shahr - ميدان شهر and I respect that.

http://www.ketabtoon.net/ketaboona/Wardag_qawm_seema_BOOK.pdf is a book about Wardag Province and Wardag People. The book is in Pashto, but if you can read farsi than you will be able to read Pashto as well. Scroll down to Page 26 and see how they have written the name of Maidan Shar. We can use the book as another source. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

Afghanistan

Thanks for the heads-up. I will respect your request. Green Giant (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shindand

I try my best to keep my edits as neutral as possible. However, I expect the same from other users as well. (Ketabtoon (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

WP:ANI

Hi there! Just dropping by to let you know that you're the topic of a recent section at the administrator's noticeboard. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, anyway, I'd like to notify you of this, while we're at it.

85.96.138.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has violated WP:3RR on Great Seljuq Empire () and Ghaznavids (). I think he should be reverted. Perhaps a semi-protection could help. Tajik (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The record of this is here. I removed it, to reduce clutter. Best, ceranthor 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Amir Kror Suri

The tags were set in place because the article was missing reliable sources. I have provided 3 foreign and 3 Afghan sources. As I mentioned, it is a different case that YOU do not like the sources. I have already asked for a third person's opinion Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

reminder...

I want to remind you of this. I realize it says excepting obvious vandalism, but please be extremely cautious about making any reverts. It may be better, in fact, for someone else to revert vandalism you find. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Babur

Thank you for your response, i've left a message on the talk page. Instead of resorting to one click reverts lets work together on improving the article. Xaghan (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Warrior4321 13:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your double standard on Iranian peoples and Hazara people

In this edit on iranian peoples, you restored a section which said azeris and uzbeks are iranian peoples even though they speak turkic language because they descend from iranian peoples. In this edit on Talk:Hazara people, you say language is the main factor for ethnic identiy in the middle east, so you could claim hazaras are iranian peoples, but Hazaras are descended from mongols, and therefore not iranian.Time Buddha (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

For a continuing pattern of not discussing content reversions, as required by your Arbitration hearing, I am blocking you for 1 week. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I am not supposed to explain reverts of obvious vandalism. Removing Hazaras from the article Iranian peoples is vandalism, and the user refused to accept the sources given to him. Parallel to this event, there has been a long discussion in the German Misplaced Pages regarding the definition of "Iranian peoples" and this is the result. The article is based on the scholarly article of the Encyclopaedia Iranica and, by that definition, the Hazara people are part of the larger Iranian ethno-linguistic group. Keeping that aside, I did explain my reverts on the talk-page(s): . I even contacted him on his talk-page and asked him not to falsify sources. I really do not understand why you have blocked me. Tajik (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(After I contacted Nishkid64 via Email, he made this change - so here is my short explanation:) This is not a revert. It's the remodeling of the intro. The information was not deleted. In fact, it is mentioned further below. It does not make any sense to hand-pick only one of the many theories and mention it in the lead of the article. I changed that by writing a neutral lead, while the different theories are mentioned in the article. That is HARDLY against the ArbCom rules! Tajik (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tajik, I am looking into this block incident. I cannot make any promises. Kingturtle (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

119.152 added "...which possibly refers to central Afghan highlands" on July 4. This was removed by 84.208 and then reverted by 119.152. Then you came along and removed the same exact text. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not look at the history. I only check an article's history to make sure I do not violate the 1RR. I saw the article, saw the POV in the intro and corrected it, since I did not have any previous edits in that article. That's not against the rules of Misplaced Pages or against the rules of the ArbCom. Besides that, this was the original version of the article (I've now looked into the article's history) before it was altered by 119.152.247.112. Tajik (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't interfere in Article Hazara people

Man why you always talking about Encyclopaedia Iranica, Hazaras are not only banned around or withing this encyclopaedia Iranica. without this Encyclopaedia there are many other source where we can reference it. Just take your hand out of this article and I know you are tajik not Hazara. Any thing you might know but not more then me as I am pure Hazara. Exactly man you compel me to use such word but after this if you had any disputed sentance against article Hazara people then you will be reported as SPAM. I am serious... You are not just interfering in Hazara people article but also you touch article Hazaragi language. Oh man what you know about Hazaragi lanaguage.

One thing important to clear for you is that You have been blocked once due to this article Hazara people I don't want to request for your block again. this is what you might deserve. Thank you tajik | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Inuit18

I did not block him, I merely declined the unblock request on the grounds that his editing was arguably disruptive, that he had been blocked before for similar conduct and evaded those blocks as well.

As for NisarKand, other users' conduct is not an issue in granting an unblock. If he has engaged in such sockpuppetry, the proper forum for that is SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the content of the edit, it was the fact that he'd been reinserting it so many times. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

--VirtualSteve 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nurbandma

Just started a new sock case ... his first edit does look a bit suspicious. It'll be indef time if found to be a sock, that's for sure. Blueboy96 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tajik vs. Persian response

My friend, I understand the difference between Persian and Tajik. I've studied introductory Tajik and then went on to Persian without a problem. The problem on wikipedia is that you can't go around changing every reference of Tajik to "dialect" when the page for spoken Tajik says "Langauge". So if you want to start a debate, then start the debate for changing Tajik to a dialect of Persian on the Tajik language page. Besides, not even John Perry or C.E. Bosworth, who are the authors of the Encyclopedia Iranica and Enclopedia of Islam articles, call Tajik a "dialect" of Persian, nor do they call it an independent language.

Bosworth in the Encyclopedia of Islam article only uses the term "dialects" in the following sentence "those inhabitants of Transoxania, Farghāna, and the Pamirs who spoke Iranian languages and dialects," to refer to all of the languages of the Iranian language group, including Persian, Yaghnobi and the Pamiri language groups. Modern "Tajik" is in fact a Soviet creation, and Bosworth refrains from referring to it as a neither a language nor a dialect in the section of the article that concerns the Soviet period of rule in Central Asia:

"In the early Soviet period, this differentiation was further developed. Literati like Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAynī (Bečka, Sadriddin Ayni, passim) and the “regionalist” and Turkestanist ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Fiṭrat (Bečka, Tajik literature , following Bertel’s) superimposed the notion of Tād̲j̲īk on to the linguistic term Tād̲j̲īkī (tod̲j̲ikī), which denoted a modernised form of the Persian literary language as adapted to the colloquial language of the inhabitants of Buk̲h̲ārā and Samarḳand. ʿAynī was also representative of a tendency favoured by the Soviets, to separate the Tād̲j̲īk as a Persian-(Tād̲j̲īkī-)speaking nation from the Uzbeks, who were conceived as Turkophone. The term Uzbek, up to that time a tribal name, from now on also covered the Russian colonial term Sart. With the founding of the Soviet Republic of Tād̲j̲īkistān (Tod̲j̲ikiston) in 1929, Tād̲j̲īk finally became the official name of a Soviet titular nation and, since 1991, that of the majority nation of an independent republic . In Uzbekistan, Tād̲j̲īk indicates the minority of Persian-(Tād̲j̲īkī-)speakers in Buk̲h̲ārā, Samarḳand, the as̲h̲ḳa Daryā region and in parts of Farg̲h̲āna, which are mostly bilingual (Uzbek, Tād̲j̲īk). Since the “national delimitation” of Central Asia in 1924, the Tād̲j̲īk of the Uzbek part of the Zarafs̲h̲ān valley have been exposed to an extensive process of Uzbekisation. Following the usage of Russian colonial times, speakers of non-Persian Iranian languages and dialects were also called Tād̲j̲īk , a fact which led to further confusion (Bregel, Notes, 15). For the sake of differentiation, terms like “Mountain Tād̲j̲īks” (a synonym of Gal‘a) were introduced; these were all foreign des-¶ ignations, which were, however, adopted by the peoples concerned under the influence of colonial, later Soviet, language regulation."

The only sentence that touches on the aspect of Tajik as a language or a dialect is "Literature] superimposed the notion of Tād̲j̲īk on to the linguistic term Tād̲j̲īkī (tod̲j̲ikī), which denoted a modernised form of the Persian literary language as adapted to the colloquial language of the inhabitants of Buk̲h̲ārā and Samarḳand," but here Bosworth uses the term "language" to refer to the origins of "Tajik", and does not address if Tajik is a language or a dialect.

Perry in his Encyclopedia Iranica article is even less clear. He starts off the article by calling it "Tajik Persian" but then writes : "Tajik in other regions of Tajikistan is represented by several dialect groups, divided roughly into northern and southern varieties. Northern dialects are all more or less strongly influenced by Uzbek, while southern dialects are less so, being generally closer to the spoken Persian of adjacent areas of Afghanistan, including Kāboli." So Tajik if Tajik is a dialect, then how can there be dialects of Tajik?

Neither Perry or Bosworth ever come out and call Tajik, which was created in the 20th century, as a language or a dialect. They are deliberately vague because even the experts in this area do not feel comfortable coming down on either side of this argument. There could be an argument to call it a language or a dialect. But with your user name as "Tajik", I assume you are from Tajikistan, and thus you know that in the country where Tajik is spoken, this is not a settled argument and many people, including linguists, that Tajik is a language.

Finally I'll just repeat what I said on the the Iraj Bashiri discussion page: for one user to go around changing Tajik to "dialect" when wikipedia has a page called "Tajik language" is silly. If you want to further this debate, then start on the Tajik language page.David Straub (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NPS tribal map

Just because a very week source has been provided it doesn't mean that the information should stay. The information provided at Aims or MRRD are the work of Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan and United Nations. When stats / estimates are provided by the government of a country and the united nations, there is no need to add information from a small NGO like NPS. I understand that they are all estimates, however, if we start adding all the estimates that are available on the net then a short page like this will turn into a research book. I doubt that you would be able to find any other reliable source which will support NPS' color worked maps. (Ketabtoon (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

We all know that there has not been any census in Afghanistan since 1970. However, you cannot compare estimates provided by the government of Afghanistan + United Nations with the estimates provided by NPS. NPS is an ordinary organization with their own numbers. If you look at their sources, they have sourced Abdul Latif's book on Pashtun tribe (which mentions nothing about ethnic distribution in Afghanistan) and Aims.org.af (and their map totally contradicts AIMS). Like I mentioned before, there 10s of sources (books, organizations, news agencies etc) who have their own estimates. Take a look at the list "http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm". There are weaker and stronger sources. Afghan Government + United Nations is a much stronger source while a small organization like NPS is a much weaker source. Plus, I have explained why I have reverted the edits in their discussion pages. Apart from that, you cannot find a single other source which will claim that districts like Mussahi, Bagrami or Khaki Jabbar have a Tajik majority. In this case, NPS's estimates are nothing but a minority view. (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hotakis

Salaam! What difference does it make if it was an empire or a dynasty? And even if they implicitly "inherited" the Persian throne, they at least had a "military uprising" against the Safavids. This itself is enough to call them a dynasty. In addition, they also had Kandahar as their capital, or didn't they?Ariana (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. Yes, Afghanistan did not exist before the 18th century, but it does not mean that we (Tajiks and the inheritors of the great Persian or Iranian civilisation) should abandon any of our pre-Afghanistan history which had anything in common with the Persian history and culture. In fact, we should highlight those parts of pre-Afghanistan history which demonstrate the peak of Persian culture and civilisation.

The criterion for mentioning the pre-18th century dynasties should not be the ethnic locality or the local inhabitant-ship, but rather the geographic location of the capitals of those dynasties. Ghaznavids were not Tajik and were originally Turks from Faraa-rod, but the capital of their empire hafd always been in Ghazni. So there is no problem in mentioning Ghaznavids as part of Afghanistan's history. The same case applies to the Timurids, Seljukids and others. For in the context of the former criterion, Safavids were not Persians either, but Iran (today's political entity) considers them as a one of the remarkable icons of its history.

As to the Mughals, just the fact that Babur came to Kabul in 1501 and stayed/resided for several years there, formed a relatively powerful army to attack towards the South, is itself enough to make the Mughals part of our history. The same case applies to the Hotakis. No matter if the Safavid royal families or local rulers did not recognize the Hotakis as the Kings of Persia, the Hotakis did rule "politically and militarily", which makes them a dynasty. The fact that Afghanistan's etymological background traces to the Pashtuns, mentioning Hotakis as part of Afghan history is not false. They rose from Kandahar and did rule almost the entire Afghanistan's territories for a few years, despite their capital being in Isfahan.

I think the case of Hotakis is a small issue. Letting it be mentioned as one of the dynasties is not a great deal. It reduces the provocation of some Pashtun editors and permits us to focus on some other important points in the pre-18th century history.Ariana (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful

This edit of yours made reference to the fact that Faisal Shahzad was Pashtun. This is the only paragraph in the article I can see that implies that: "Kifyat Ali, a cousin of Shahzad's father, spoke with reporters outside a two-story home the family owns in an upscale part of Peshawar, Pakistan. He said the family had yet to be officially informed of Shahzad's arrest, which he called "a conspiracy so the (Americans) can bomb more Pashtuns," a reference to a major ethnic group in Peshawar and the nearby tribal areas of Pakistan and southwest Afghanistan."

That really isn't enough to mark him as a Pasthun. If we get a source that is more direct, please feel free to add it to the article. NW (Talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dorood

لطفا مواظب شاعرهای مشهور پارسی باشید مانند مولانا/نظامی.. من چند روزی رفتم تعطیلی سپاسگزارم —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavannariman (talk • contribs) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Following a recent thread at WP:ANI, I have offered to mediate in a dispute between editors.

I consider that the mediation process is open to everyone. In particular, it is open to editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute, and to editors who have never edited this article.

I will post this message at the talk pages of Kabul and Kabul Province, at WP:ANI, and on the talk pages of the editors who appear to be involved already.

You may, if you wish, re-post this message elsewhere. If you choose to do so I strongly recommend you post this message and not a new message. I would also strong recommend you read and understand WP:CANVAS before doing so!

The mediation process will take place at User:TFOWR/Kabul.

Thank you! TFOWR 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with Skype

Hi! Skype and Misplaced Pages don't mix - I've just had to revert your recent edit to Pashto. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Tajik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Could you please explain which one of my edits was NOT "useful"?! I corrected a wrong spelling/transliteration by adopting the spelling used in Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Here, read this academic article. So could you please explain to me why I have been banned for 1 week?! Because I have used information from academic sources?! I reverted Ahmed shahi only once, and that revert was fully justified according to modern academic sources! May I also remind you that Ahmed shahi openly insulted other users by calling them "vandals" and accusing them of "spreading racism", without getting warned by admins?! There are 3 complaints against him at WP:ANI!

Decline reason:

You were blocked firstly because you are in violation of your editing restriction and secondly because your actions served no purpose but to deliberately fan the flames of an already heated dispute. It's also worth nothing that this block is in relation to your own behaviour, not that of Ahmed shahi (though I am paying very close attention to him, as well. As to your other point, a revert is any action which "in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editor" which you are not permitted to do more than once to any article in any one week and which you did once and then a second time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My edits served the purpose to correct his mistakes. He created a stub without any sources and based on nothing. I corrected his mistakes. But then, he reverted back to his own wrong version without giving any proper explanation. I know that you won't unblock me, and - honestly - I do not care. But at least try to do the English Misplaced Pages favor by paying attention to the POV-pushing of Ahmed shahi who has been reported 3 times within 1 week by 3 different users! I know that the English Misplaced Pages lacks admins in sensitive areas such as Islam-related topics and I know that the English Misplaced Pages will probably never reach the high quality of other versions, for example the German Misplaced Pages, in this regard. But that does not mean that users such as Ahmed shahi who have no other ambitions but pushing for nationalistic-motivated POV should be ignored and secretly supported! Tajik (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm monitoring him closely but consider that if you have a dispute with someone, it's probably not the best idea to go sticking your nose into an article they just created. Rest assured that if Ahmed shahi does something blockable, he will be blocked as you did and were. I can see how you might find this unfair, but he is, to the best of my knowledge, not subject to ArbCom-imposed restrictions but if he is and he's violated them, then I'll block him. You're also welcome to contact ArbCom by going to User:Arbitration Committee and using the "email this user function" to ask them to clarify or lift your restrictions, but I don;t knw how much success you;d have with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling others "racist" or deleting scholarly sources is not bond to any ArbCom decisions. I have respected the decision and since then, I have never violated them. You can check my history: I have kept away from disputes and I did my best to avoid POV. That's why I strictly follow academic sources, usually by using word-to-word quotes. Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) does not understand any of that. He does not know the difference between scholarly sources and unreliable websites (see his ridiculous claims regarding Encyclopaedia of Islam which only exposes his lack of knowledge in this field), he is an extreme POV-pusher and he has no respect for consensuses reached after long discussions (such as in the Ghurids article). His edits chronically contradict works by scholars, he is pushing for nationalistic POV (for example, he does not understand that the country Afghanistan did not exist prior to 1747 and hence cannot be used that way in an article dealing with medieval or ancient kingdoms/personalities). His edits in Pashtun people are POV, falsification of sources (he names Ferishta as a source without being able to give an explicit quote! He rejects the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica), etc etc etc. Leaving all of that aside, he insults other users (me, Ariana310, Inuit, and others) without fearing any sanctions. So far, you and other admins have put a blind eye on his countless insults and violations of WP:NPA despite 3 complaints against him at WP:ANI. None of this helps the project! Tajik (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's almost amusing that every time I come across either of you, you say exactly the same thing about each other. FWIW, I;ve told him that if he edits your talk page again before the block expires, I'll block him with the same settings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Both may say similar things about each other. However, one of them (Tajik) uses sources such as Encyclopaedia of Islam and the other one (Ahmed Shahi) relies on sources such as Sabawoon.com. You, as an admin, should distinguish these two, when you are dealing with these kinds of edit wars. Alefbe (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tajik, will you agree to an interaction ban between yourself and Ahmed shahi? You don't have to, but I think it's the only way to get you both to focus on the issue and not each other. If you agree, just reply here and I'll draw it up and unblock you on the condition that you agree to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think that it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages when scholarly sources are used and respected. You can unblock me and I will keep away from the above mentioned articles. But Ahmed shahi's falsifications and POV will stay. Tajik (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the point of it would be to allow the mediation to proceed but to stop the mud slinging and edit warring. I'll draw it up and you can see what you think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have already explained: I won't edit (or correct) those articles in the coming days/weeks. So please go on and unblock me. And I won't "interact" with Ahmed shahi. But I just wanted to point out that the problem won't be solved. You should keep an eye on Ahmed shahi. 3 different complaints about him at WP:ANI by 3 different users and at least 6 different users criticizing him should not be ignored by admins. Tajik (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've drafted User:HJ Mitchell/Interaction ban and I'm about to unblock you. If you have queries, please feel free to post them to that page's talk page and once you're happy, sign in the appropriate section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned your name in

Thanks for the message, but, no, I have nothing to say about that. Tajik (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably wise. My advice now would be to keep your head down and try to make some progress with the mediation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Kabul / Kabul Province mediation

Hi!

To encourage the mediation process to continue, I've made some changes! I've created separate pages for the three editors currently involved. I'd like to invite you to review your page, which is here. It's entirely possible that I've made mistakes when creating the page and moving content from the previous page - please do feel free to correct and errors I may have made.

Best wishes, TFOWR 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tajik, if you want you can post here and I'll copy the comments over to User:TFOWR/Kabul/Tajik. TFOWR 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Kabul / Kabul Province mediation - update

Hi Tajik

I was hoping to resume the mediation process, however one of the participants has now had their block extended to "indefinite". I have no reason to think that they'll be returning to mediation any time soon, so this is to formally let you know that I'm discontinuing.

Thanks you for taking the time to participate in mediation: I consider that it shows good faith on your part.

Happy editing! TFOWR 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:template

Hi,

There is a significant difference between the two templates. The template of Greater Iran does not include the Kambojas civilization who have a significant historical role for Afghanistan. Furthermore, it completely ignores the dynasties which invaded the territories of Afghanistan or which were centered in the current Afghan territories; for example the Mauryans' invasion of Afghanistan, the reign of Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians, Indo-Sassanids, Kidarites and the post-18th century history of Afghanistan.

So where is the "direct copy" or "poor copy"? To remind you, when I created the template of History of Afghanistan with having Kabul Shahis in the list, you instantly brought the same change in the History of Greater Iran's template; you added Kabul Shahi. I had first made an error about their ruling period, and you copied it without verifying it. I recently corrected the error .

It is totally justifiable and authentic to add History of Afghanistan's template in the articles in which the dynasties were centered in current Afghan territories. If you are saying that there will be two similar templates, then the point of removing one applies equally to that of Greater Iran as well. Removing Afghanistan's template is your own POV. You yourself stated that you are totally against anything which has to do with pre-18th century history of Afghanistan. And now based on your POV, you're removing the template.

As to Rabi'a Balkhi, can you please give me the title of the article in Encyclopaedia of Islam? I cannot find the concerning entry in EI. There is Rabi'a al-Adawiyya but not Rabi'a bint Ka'b.

Please spare me your Ad hominem approach. You feel yourself very comfortable with marking others as un-academic. Calling the transliteration of her name as "Rabi'a Balkhi" to be unacademic is inaccurate and a bit exaggerated. First, that was not the article of Rabi'a Balkhi herself. If you change the title of Rabi'a Balkhi's article to "Rabi'a bint Ka'b Balkhi", I would totally agree. But given a secondary article, it is totally correct to shorten someone's long name/title and to write the most widely used form (Rabi'a Balkhi is more widely used, especially in Persian). If that were the case, then in many scholarly sources, the author has written only "Rumi", would you call those academic books as unacademic as well?

Please don't start an edit war on small issues, and keep in mind your reverting restriction in wikipedia. By the way, did you confuse me with User:Ahmed shahi? Because I can notice a difference between the way you wrote to me now and the way you communicated with me when User:Ahmed shahi was still active and you were having trouble with him. Ariana (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As we agreed in the discussion, only the most notable empires should be mentioned in the intro. Kabul Shahis, Saffarids and Ghorids are not in the list too. As to the Timurids, they had their capital initially in Samarkand. But in 1405, Gawharshad Begum moved the capital to Herat, and it remained their capital till their decline. Ariana (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your earlier reply about Rabi'a. Rabi's existence is verified and true. Not only in Awfi's Lubab al-Albab, but her detailed biography and description of life is given by Rudaki, by Jami in his Nafahat al-Uns and by Attar Nishapuri. Especially, the fact that Rudaki transmitted the acconts of Rabi'a who was her contemporary removes any doubt about her existence. She is not like Laylee o Majnoon to be only a legendary and mythical icon. Her three most notable biographers (Rudaki, Awfi and Jami) have called her Rabi'a bint Ka'b or Rabi'a Balkhi. I agree with the rest of your statements. But as I said earlier, in a secondary article (i.e. Afghanistan), it is totally valid to shorten her name and to call her with the title she is more well-known by.

As to Hephthalites, okay, I will re-add it.

Moving one's capital (especially the capital of Medieval Dynasties) does not mean that they cede to rule or to have their descendants in the previous city. Of course, Timurids' descendants remained for a long time in Soghdiana and Khwarezmia; but after 1405, Herat was their cultural and political capital till their decline. There's nothing to argue about it.

I have added History of Afghanistan's template ONLY in those dynasties whose principal capital was in the current territories of Afghanistan. I don't care what the editors earlier did. Obviously adding Turkey's, Georgia's and Iraq's template in Safavid article was wrong. All their capitals were in modern Iran. I have not added the template in the dynasties who had invaded or ruled over Afghanistan's territories. You can verify that. And there is no need to add India or Pakistan's templates in Ghaznavids, because their principal capital was Ghazni. After their decline, when they were defeated by the Ghorids, they moved to Lahore, and that's not important. And the same applies to Ghorids. The same way, I have not added Afghanistan's template in Mughals, because their principal capital was Delhi. There is no POV in such a method. In contrary, your removal of the template from Ghaznavids and Ghorids is totally based on your POV.

No, I am not trying to get you banned. In fact, I truly want that there should be a honest cooperation among the editors. I have respected many of your points, for the last two years that I am editing. But sometimes, especially in the case of post-18th century Afghanistan, your stance is based on POV. Ariana (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with your proposition, but again we will have to add other subsections for Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan too. Or do you want only Afghanistan to be mentioned? Like we can write "History of Khorasan" at the top of the first two sections (Pre-Islamic and Islamic periods), and "History of Afghanistan" at the top of the third section (Post-18th century). Is that how you want it? Ariana (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should use a name which is more widely used in scholarly sources. Khorasan is authentic, I agree with that. But what poses problem is that some users will argue that Greater Iran already comprises Khorasan, so the template will be redundant. Although there was a disagreement with the Greater Iran template itself, because some editors didn't agree with adding Iraq, Azerbaijan and Aremina in the list; while there was no disagreement with the Khorasan region (Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan).

If others agree that the two templates (Greater Iran and Khorasan) can be added together in some articles articles (like the dynasties which were centered in Khorasan), then I am all for that. But the template should then have subsections for the post 18th century period; with Afghanistan as a sub-section (just like the older version of Greater Iran).

As to the renaming of Greater Iran template to the History of Iranian Cultural Continent, I do not disagree. But there was already such a proposition a year ago, and the majority of editors voted for the name Greater Iran. Do you think you will be able to convince them to rename the template? I don't think so. Ariana (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

But why not "History of Khorasan"? Khorasan, too, is not a political entity and is only a geographic region. The reason I prefer Khorasan over Hindukush is that Khorasan covers all the cultural advancement of the region; it is a term which is widely used in scholarly sources and is very well-known. And if HinduKush covers modern Afghanistan, I don't see any point why to "separate" them and to make two "different" templates. Ariana (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll create the new template, and will let you know. Ariana (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You can have a look at this. If you agree, I will move the page of History of Afghanistan to this page, and will delete the earlier template. Some dates might need some correction, but we will do it later. Ariana (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Qizilbash

As it is mentioned inside the article Azerbaijan is the origin of their formation I didn't understand why you undid the modification. Behind this Kurdistan and Eastern Anatolia are both in NW of Iran.--M karzarj (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.mrrd.gov.af/nabdp/Provincial%20Profiles/Kabul%20PDP%20Provincial%20profile.pdf
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming