Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A lot of people in the image gallery are represented as Tajiks while this is not true. Ferodwsi was born in Iran, therefore he could not have been Tajik. Secondly Rabia Balkhi was of Arab descent therefore she could not have been of Tajik descent either. Lastly, why is Muhammad of Ghori included in the gallery of Tajiks? He was not a Tajik, the ghorids themselves were believed to be Pashtuns and they were NOT native speakers of the Persian language but rather patronizers of the culture. There seems to be a lot of vandalism and propaganda being posted by Tajiks here themselves with no evidence being provided. I also request the Tajik article to be moved to the "Persian People" article as a sub-category to erase confusion of Tajiks being a separate group.

Akmal94 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Akmal94

@Akmal94: Agreed, the current gallery is very problematic. Many Persians are mistakenly being portrayed as 'ethnic Tajiks' in an entirely anachronistic manner in order to perpetuate a Tajik ethnogenesis. Most of these subjects are only referred to as Tajik in the propagandist literature which was mass produced by 20th-century Tajik nationalists. Even if they were historically referred to as Tajik, it had an entirely different meaning in the past. It was used solely to refer to Arabs and Iranian converts to Islam [1]. See [2] for information on how the modern-day state of Tajikistan attempts to claim virtually all Iranian peoples as ethnic Tajiks irregardless of whether they lived in Central Asia or not.

The Encyclopedia Iranica article referenced on this very page has some interesting information pertaining to this:

"The modern meaning of “Tajik” has been distorted in Tajik-language and Russian academic usage (both Soviet and post-Soviet) by the propaganda of the complementary agendas of Soviet nationalities policy and Tajik nationalism[...] In most scholarly writing on Persian literature and cultural history (of Iran and India as well as Central Asia) the adjective is usually construed as “Perso-Tajik” or “Tajik-Persian” poetry, historiography, etc., in an atopical and anachronistic application of the national ethnonym to the entire Persianate world [...]"

I'm going to go ahead and remove all of the purported 'Tajiks' whom have no references to their supposed ethnicity on their article pages. The allusion to the Samanid Empire on this article are also troubling [3]. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Akmal94: The procedure for requesting moving a page is set forth at Wikipedia:Requested moves. What you appear to be suggesting is a merger of this article into the article entitled Persian People. See Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from. If you choose to continue, please be sure that usage on both templates points to the same place for discussion. If you are serious it would also be appropriate to give notice of the merger discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tajikistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A user tried to again restore all the medieval Persians and Chorasmians etc into infobox to claim them as Tajiks on Wikipedia. They were not Tajiks so I reverted him. Khestwol (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't ask you to read all of my arguments, since you're probably not interested in Tajiks, but do me a favor and read the articles of some of the more notable people purported as Tajik on this article, such as Avicenna, Khwarizmi or Muhammad al-Bukhari. You will not find a single mention of "Tajik" on their article pages. I searched for books in an attempt to prove a possibility of their ethnicity being Tajik and I couldn't find any sources which claim this to be the case. Hence, I removed them from this page. This was done per the policy: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Removing unreferenced and unproven information is not edit warring. You said it yourself: "of course we should not add nonsense". Adding Khwarizmi or Avicenna to the gallery is not any less nonsensical than adding, say, Obama or Will Ferrel. There is no justification for labeling any of these people as "Tajik" because there are no references, on or off Wikipedia, which stake this claim. Thus, the onus is on the people who wish to re-add the pictures to at least find some sort of reference purporting these peoples' Tajik ethnicity and plaster it on their article pages. I have no obligation to find a source which argues against their Tajik ethnicity; trying to do so would be attempting to prove a negative. I really don't see how any sort of a consensus would be required to remove ludicrously inaccurate and unreferenced matieral, even in ethnicity galleries. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: I'm sure you agree I cannot be held responsible for what User:Scytsari wrote, and while I don't agree with the edit warring, I'm the first to agree that you're certainly not a vandal, and that your edits are made in good faith. However, your arguments are very poor. You say it is no less nonsensical to add Obama than to add Avicenna. Pardon me, but that is where you lose all credibility. Avicenna spoke and wrote the language that would develop into modern Tajik (and modern Persian), he was born in a city that both then and now was/is populated by what became ethnic Tajiks. If you think that that is comparable to Obama or Will Ferrel being Tajiks, well, I'm afraid you either lack rudimentary knowledge or you really cannot present a case. Your tiresome insistence that it is "ludicrously inaccurate" material is rather empty. Both your silly comparison with Obama and your sweeping generalizations only serve to highlight that you appear to have no factual arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Elspamo4. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Many of the nonsense additions were Medieval Persians, besides a Ghurid, and a Khwarezmian-speaker (i.e. Al-Biruni). Reliable sources don't consider them Tajiks. We can add only those figures to the gallery who are unncontroversially Tajiks. Khestwol (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should only add figures who are uncontroversially Tajiks. Deducing that Avicenna is Tajik because he was born in a city which was populated by 'what became Tajiks' is pure OR and anachronic. I also don't see how speaking Persian and Arabic makes him Tajik. Please find a reliable source which claims he is Tajik. Keep in mind that the ethnicity of historical figures are a hotly debated issue; Avicenna has been claimed by multiple ethnic groups. The only literature that claims he is Tajik is state propaganda. I also think you completely misunderstand the context in which Tajik was used in historical times. It certainly wasn't an ethnonym in Avicenna's time. Elspamo4 (talk)

>I also think you completely misunderstand the context in which Tajik was used in historical times. It certainly wasn't an ethnonym in Avicenna's time. are you uneducated or what? The term tajik was most certainly used during his time - the word tajik is literally a synonym for persian, one is a greek term and one is a turkic term all for the same farsi/parsi speakers - avicenna was born in the samanid empire, to say he was not a persian/tajik is fallacious. Mad vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of vandalism. No one is saying he was not Persian. That still does not make him Tajik. Tajik is a specific sub-group of Persian people, not the other way around. Unless you are able to find a reliable source stating very clearly that he was a part of this particular ethnic sub-group, and place it on the articles of the people you claim are 'Tajik', I see little benefit of continuing this discussion. And, for the last time, place of birth is not a determinant of ethnicity. Doubly so when you try to apply this faulty logic in such an anachronistic manner. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Uzbeks page doesn't seem to have any 5th century Persians in their ethnicity gallery. All of the people listed as Uzbek have SOURCES in their articles supporting this view. So please stop re-adding nonsense state propaganda to this page. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Scytsari: I know Tajiks are Central Asian Persians, and Tajik is a synonym for Persian-speaking groups. But using Tajik instead of Persian is anachronism and original research. You need historical sources or reliable references to use Tajik as an identity for medieval Persians/Iranians of Central Asia. Why? Because the definition of modern ethnic group Tajik may be confusing and you need to clarify its medieval usage as an ethnic identity. Try Encyclopædia Iranica official website. If you provide reliable sources, nobody will remove them from the infobox again. We can't use our very own interpretation of the sources. For example, if a source says "X was a Persian...", we should only use "Persian", not Iranian/Afghan/Tajik/. --Zyma (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

>That still does not make him Tajik. Tajik is a specific sub-group of Persian people, not the other way around Again, demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about, I advise you to go to iranica or any other source and educate yourself on the term "tajik", it's etymology, when it was used, why it was used and who it refers to. Even up until the 1800s german sources referred to farsi speaking iranians in iran as tajiks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As juicy and enlightening reading through this discussion was, it seems like some users do not like our staunch edits. Granted, we have no agenda here, all we are trying to do is clear up confusion which can mislead others who may come and read this article. However, 3 people here including me, Khestwol and Elspamo4 have agreed that the current gallery is very problematic and misleading. None of these people can be seen as "Tajiks" because the term "Tajik" was not used for a single ethnic group until the soviet era which even then had a negative notion with inhabitants of Tajikistan. Why forget that the term was used specifically to Arabs in the past? Does that mean Ibn Sina was Arab then? Its just as silly to add a portrait of Kaniskha in the Pashtun People gallery just because he happened to be from their region because the term Afghan was not applied later. We can only add pictures of people in modern times who accept and seem themselves as Tajik rather then past figures which can be seen as controversial. Furthermore it seems like past edit has once again been reverted by an unknown user with no reason being given. Akmal94 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's a fallacious false equivalency, kanishka was one - not a pashto speaker, and two, not from pashtun regions. The term tajik in almost every person identified as tajik in this time was present, it's a term used for persians by the turkics. Avicenna's father was from then, balkh, a tajik dominated area/persian dominated area, and he lived his life/was born in a tajik/persian dominated area. Same with your other many examples, several of which have made poems referring to themselves and cultural group as tajiks. You just seem to be a pashtun with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, a lot of discussion has been made above about the content of the infobox, but none of the discussion was productive because no one provided any WP:reliable sources for their claims. Let's try to make some productive discussion. As I understand, certain editors (Elspamo4, Akmal94) claim that some images should be removed from the infobox (namely, images of Rudaki, Avicenna, Khwarizmi, Biruni, Al-Bukhari, Jami, Nasir Khusraw, Ismail Samani, Muhammad Ghori and Rabia Balkhi). The reason provided for the removal is that those persons were not Tajiks. Whether that is correct or not, I don't know. But, indeed, the article does not cite any reliable sources to prove that hey were Tajiks. So, Elspamo4 removed those images as they present unreferenced information (diff). That was perfectly correct thing to do: unreferenced material that is suspected to be wrong should be removed until the source is found. After that, some editors (i.e. Jeppiz) reinstated the images (diff) claiming that "there is no consensus to delete". That was the wrong step. We don't need consensus to remove unsourced information from the article. Instead of reinstating the images, Jeppiz should have provided some sources that those persons were Tajiks before making edit. But, as I can see, no sources were ever provided. This resulted in an full-scale edit war, and the article is now temporarily protected. So, to conclude: following Wikipedia's policy on WP:verifiability, we should not include images of people for whom we have no reliable sources to prove that they were Tajiks. We don't need consensus for that, Wikipedia policies are themselves result of a longstanding consensus. So, editors arguing for the inclusion of those images should use those few days while the article is protected to present some reliable sources to prove those persons were Tajiks. If no sources are presented in a timely manner, those images should be removed. Now, please, everybody, stop arguing about who started the edit-war and who is guilty, and start presenting sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into the issue Vanjagenije. I am one of the editors who objected to the inclusion of non-Tajik images into the gallery of the Tajiks. Khestwol (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Rumi and Hammasa Kohistani to the list of people who should be removed. I was tricked by Kohistani's page because it used to state that she was Tajik (with a reference), but as I have discovered, the reference was used deceptively and did not mention anything about her ethnicity being Tajik. So to reiterate, for anyone who wishes to re-add any of these pictures, reliable sources must be posted on the page of the subject themselves, and you must post here listing the article you have added the reliable source(s) to so that we can judge its veracity.

The article content should be discussed as well. I believe we should remove any mentions of the Samanid Empire because it is anachronic and has nothing to do with the modern Tajik ethnicity, even if it was called Tajik. Because as we have already established, 'Tajik' had a different meaning in the past and was not an ethnonym. I'd like further opinions on this. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, some editors are using their own interpretations and WP:POV to decide who is Tajik and who is not. To take but one example, the insistence that we can only deal with "modern" Tajiks is entirely erroneous. For most galleries in infoboxes on different peoples and nations, there are both modern and more ancient personalities. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci is listed as Italian, even though "Italy" didn't exist at the time and Erasmus is listed as Dutch. Correct in both cases. I'm a bit unsure about what "sources" are needed. Few people except loony extremists require DNA testing to determine a person's ethnicity, so if a modern person is both Tajik, quite obviously we list them as Tajik without going into some bizarre ethnic testing. This comes to mind reading the suggestion to remove Hammasa Kohistani. It's really quite simple. We apply the same criteria for this article as for any article article on any people/nation. The bar is not any higher here than elsewhere. When reading that Elspamo4 is not only limited to removing anyone not explicitly called Tajik but even wants to remove historical people called Tajik, it's no longer possible to keep good faith and it becomes obvious we're back to the tiresome nationalist campaign that various socks have been waging on this article for over a year now.Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are currently no reliable sources stating that they are Tajik. The fact that you attempt to contrast Leonardo da Vinci being Italian with Avicenna, Khwarizmi or Rumi being Tajik as a response to my claim of the latter being anachronistic is laughable. Again, please find reliable sources which back up your claims of these subjects' Tajik ethnicity.

I would highly recommend that you strike your last sentence which states that it's "no longer possible to keep good faith" before going on to accuse me of 'nationalism' and sockpuppetry. These accusations are completely baseless and not conducive to the conversation whatsoever. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a secret that this article was the target of a long campaign by several socks [4] and I see no reason to strike a perfectly factual statement. I'm not saying you're a sock, I'm merely stating you (and several others) have been edit warring about exactly the same issue that those socks used to edit war about, also a perfectly factual statement. As for factual matters, I note that your only response is to dismiss my comments as "laughable". Neither serious nor convincing.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Da Vinci was born in Florence, an Italian city-state on the Italian peninsula whose inhabitants identified as Italian. He spoke Italian. There are hundreds, if not thousands of references calling him Italian. How does that lead you to conclude that Avicenna, a Persian person who spoke Persian and who was born in a Persian empire, is therefore Tajik - an ethnic sub-group of Persians that didn't exist back then? Do you not see how illogical and anachronistic that is? If you want to prove me wrong, do it with reliable sources, not with your own opinion.

I still don't understand how you mischaracterize removing unreferenced materials as 'edit warring'. You are right that it was added by socks who have edit-warred ever since to keep it in the article. But to state that those who have removed it are 'edit warring' is just... Elspamo4 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Except it's NOT a subgroup, again, i advise you to simply go to iranica and check WHEN, WHERE, and WHY the term tajik was used - it was certainly used in avicenna's time, it's not a subgroup, it's literally just another word for persian just like how the greek term persian encompasses farsi speakers, the turkic term tajik encompasses farsi speakers. Germans were referring to farsi speakers in iran as tajiks up until the 1800s for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that Tajik currently isn't a sub group or that it historically wasn't a sub group? Currently, it is a sub group. Historically, in Central Asia, it was a term used to describe Arabs and Persian converts to Islam. According to Iranica, it has been applied as an ethnonym in an anachronistic and inappropriate manner by the Tajik nationalists who sprung up during the Soviet era (read the top of the page where I quote it). Also [5] says: In Central Asia, too, the term "Tajik", like its synonym "Sirt", was for centuries not primarily an ethnic designation but a socio-cultural category. Saying that the ethnicity Tajik is a synonym for Persian is also incorrect, this is simply state propaganda. Read [6]. The 1989 law making Tajik the state language treats "Persian" and "Tajik" as synonyms. These were two of the first three books that appeared in my Google search. I could find dozens more like this but I don't have any reason to prove a negative. Like I requested earlier, please find reliable sources for the subjects' ethnicities and post it on their pages. All you have done thus far is give your own hypothesis. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact here is that none of these people are mentioned as Tajiks in any source, all this is speculation at best. Jeppiz is wrong in his assertion that there was a vandalism and and edit war going on here, i see none of that going on here. Therefore it is correct to remove these images of past figures since they were not or seen as Tajiks and no sources confirm them as such. I think a vote should be taken here to those who oblige whether these people's images should stay or not to resolve the issue. Akmal94 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Akmal94: Considering that retaining these pictures would be a clear violation of WP:V, I don't think a vote is necessary. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment It's better to try WP:THIRDOPINION and WP:RFC or ask expert editors on this topic to help, and if you can't reach consensus, then go to WP:DNR. Otherwise, all of you have a chance to get blocked or topic-ban. The article is unstable due to continuous edit warring. If edit wars start after the end of current protection again, all involved editors are responsible. So solve it on here and reach a consensus. --Zyma (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Incorrect. Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a soapbox or publisher of original thoughts. Any information which is not cited will be removed as soon as page protection expires. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the claims made on this article have zero sources on Wikipedia. The burden does not lie with anyone else to 'seek consensus' or to try and prove a negative. WP:V dictates that this information should be deleted. This is not to say that I have any issue with the article displaying the picture of a subject who has a reliable source(s) verifying their ethnicity. If you feel it is necessary, no one is stopping you from requesting an RFC. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: I agree that an WP:RFC could be useful. Personally, I have no strong feelings on whom to include or exclude and agree that we should of course only include people whose ethnicity we can verify by using sources. My main objection is not to the content, but to the repeated edit warring that has been going on, and the insistence that championing the WP:TRUTH provides a carte blanche for any kind of behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Tajiks are Turks who speak Persian

“Tajik” is a word of Turko-Persian origin and means Nomads. The word "Tai" in Persian historically refers to Arabs or Tayy tribe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.232.67 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheap rant, baseless claim and pseudo-etymology. Tajiks are Iranian since their appearance in Central Asia. They were Eastern Iranians (Sogdians, Bactrians, Pamiris and other) who are Persian-speaking now. Samanid dynasty is one of the reasons of their Persian-ness. The name Tajik used for non-Arab non-Turkic groups (most of them were groups who speak varieties of Persian language). They're related to their Turkic neighbors just like those Turkic groups are related to Iranians. And Central Asia was homeland of different groups in history. So mixing and influences are very normal in that region. Tajiks don't identify themselves with Turkic-ness, they're a branch of Persiank-speaking populations, so stop your Turnaist propaganda, laughable revisionism and Pan-Turkist BS. By your logic, Anatolian Turks are Armenians who speak Turkish, OR Uzbeks and Turkmens are Turkic-speaking Iranians. Ethnicity =/= phenotype and genes. Tajiks preserved their Iranian/Aryan culture and Persian language. Even if some of them were Turk or Mongol, now they are just Central Asian Persians. --118.17.223.173 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Nations are imagined communities" - Benedict Anderson. --Lysozym (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three reverts. When protection expires again, I will be looking to block anyone who reverts multiple times, rather than re-protecting the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: If we reach a consensus here, and if some editors makes an edit (after the protection expires) that is opposite to the consensus, what shall we do? Shell we just let it be or shell we revert him and get blocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: It's best to consider this article under WP:1RR with respect to the gallery. If there is consensus, then that should ensure edit wars are short lived. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I don't really understand how would that help. Suppose we reach a consensus, and en editor edits the article according to the consensus. Now, let's suppose another editor reverts him (once). What should the first editor do? Let it be or revert and get blocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The answer to that should be obvious, and applies to all articles. If there's a consensus, the first editor should not revert again but instead wait for some other editor to do it. For the record, I saw that Elspamo4 reverted back as soon as the PP was lifted but I explicitly did not revert even though I disagreed, precisely because edits wars are the last thing we need. So that's how to handle it. If you revert once and your edit is undone, let somebody else take care of it. (And none of this is intended as support of Scytsari, who should drop the edit warring and try to find sources instead). Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You say you "disagreed" with the edit, yet you also say that Scytsari should "find sources". So, you want to say that you disagree with removing unsourced material? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed with action of immediately reverting and restarting an edit war, regardless of who is right or wrong. I agree with you that people for whom no sources can be found should be removed. I fail to see why this is so urgent that no time can be made for a proper discussion and provide some time for possible sourced to be found and discussed, rather than all of you reverting as fast as you can.Jeppiz (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I don't see what the problem is? You said there were no sources yet you reverted the content? Why is that? Why is it so hard to believe that Ferdowsi was not a Tajik considering he was born in Iran and the term Tajik wasn't born a few centuries after? I looked everywhere to see if these people really are Tajiks and no sources say so. Personally, i am starting to believe you have an agenda and you want un-sourced material to stay on this already messed up page. Did you not even read WP:3RR ? it goes against everything you are saying. Akmal94 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Akmal94: The article is fully protected for the second time in a few days, so the problem should be obvious: extensive edit warring. If the edit warriors had used the talk page to discuss calmly and await a consensus instead of Elspamo4 deleting the discussed material four times and Vanjagenije three times, we would now most likely be in a situation where the material would have been removed and the article wouldn't be blocked. I have no problem whatsoever with removing anyone for whom sources cannot be found, but I have a huge problem with the way these users have approached it. Rather than discussing to gain a consensus, they have edit warred extensively. The problem is conduct, not content.Jeppiz (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't required to remove unreferenced material for which no one has indicated they would attempt to find references for. Two weeks later and not a single reference. Reverting its removal at this point would constitute vandalism. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scytsari:, this article will soon become unprotected again. User:Elspamo4, User:Khestwol and User:Akmal94 have made the perfectly reasonable request that sources be provided for the debated individuals. While I believe they may have been a bit trigger happy, and edit warring is always wrong (not everybody involved has been edit warring), their request is absolutely correct. Last time the article was unprotected, the material was removed and an edit war began. So, User:Scytsari, by the time the article becomes unprotected, you've had two additional days to provide sources. If by that time no sources have been provided, I will support the removals that User:Elspamo4, User:Khestwol and User:Akmal94 have been advocating. If you think these persons should stay in the gallery, now is the time to provide sources. If not, they will be gone tomorrow in line with the clear consensus here.Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

NeilN quite rightly blocked the page after the latest round of edit warring between User:Scytsari and Vanjagenije. This block meant any user opposed to the consensus version had two more days to provide sources. Earlier, I called on Scytsari to provide such sources, but no sources have been given. User:Elspamo4, User:Khestwol User:Vanjagenije and User:Akmal94 have all called for the removal of a number of individuals for whom no sources could be found. Even though I at first disapproved of that change (for procedural reasons, I thought more time could be given to find sources), at this stage I'm the first to admit that they were right all along. Plenty of time have now been given for sources to be found, and none have been provided. I did a search myself for the individuals, and it yielded nothing. I stand corrected (and I believe there's nothing wrong in being mistaken, but it would be wrong not to recognize it.) As per WP:V, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, this means we remove the individuals in question. Any reinstatement of them should be sourced, and preferably discussed first with the source presented. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all good, Jeppiz. no harm done. All in all, these talks will hopefully set a precedent for future discussion if this issue or a similar one were to arise again. And, (obviously) I agree that any reinstatement should be sourced. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just check iranicas article on tajiks - ANY individual who spoke persian as a first language in central asia, was born there, their parents spoke the language were tajiks, tajiks are not a subset of persian, they are persian, it's like calling a german deutsch. The people here have a clear agenda at defaming and taking history away from tajiks. These people were born in central asia during a time where the term tajik was applicablw, to persian speaking parents, spoke persian as a first language, what more do you need? Persian ans tajik are interchangeable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.97.1 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also not surprising that the people constantly disrupting this page are pashtun/uzbek. You can ask r/iran on reddit about this topic, you can visit iranica and should you decide to put away bias, you can use common sense, or at the very least read up on the subject even on the wiki page.

I suggest simply moving this page to persian people.

I'll give an example, avicenna was born to a farsi speaking father from balkh, now afghanistan and mother from an area in modern day tajikistan. He was born during the era of the samanids, a dynasty from the area of tajikistan, persiam speaking, central asian, tajik - as such the case for ismail samani. The only person I'd agree on removing from this page is firdausi because he was not born in central asia, but the thing is the term tajik was applicable during his time.

It takes a lot of denial of history to claim, for instance, that rumi was not a tajik, someone born to farsi speaking parents in balkh, central asia is somehow not a tajik to pashtuns and Uzbeks here. Yet at the same time they will agree he is a peraian despite the two being the exact same thing. Not to mention him writing poems where he references himself and his people as tajiks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.97.1 (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC) So aside from firdausi and ghori, the rest were ALL born in central asia, to peraian speaking parents, hence they were tajiks. Although the people disrupting it have been pashtun/uzbek, it's not fair to say so and doesn't hold in argument. I agree with what the guy above is saying - either move it or remove firdausi/ghori. If someone still disagrees I can write a lot about each individual in the image page and why they are/are not considered tajiks.

I've semi-protected the page to prevent this kind of disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So far the main argument for removing them is "they're not tajiks as there's no source saying they're tajiks" which is fair, but has obvious intent and bias. It'd be like saying ahmad shah massoud is not a tajik and that he's a persian, or amrullah saleh - or really, any tajik when in reality persian and tajik are terms in different languages for the same principal group. I would also agree on removing ghori as he was NOT born to persian speaking parents.

There are sources that claim Ahmad Shah Massoud is an ethnic Tajik, I would know since I searched for sources for all these individuals in the gallery. I didn't choose to remove people at random, I removed those which I could not find reliable sources for. In the odd chance that I, Jeppiz, Akmal and anyone else who searched for sources missed something, then you can post reliable sources for each individual you think should be reinstated. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, you won't find any "sources" as the term persian has overtaken the term tajik, which was on it's way out had pashtun/uzbek rulers not adopted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You can ask for an opinion on the matter on r/iran or virtually any persian/tajik site also for more anecdotal claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In this post, I will go over each and every single one of the listed individuals aside from the modern ones. To start with, I suggest you visit iranica's article on tajiks, the ethnonym, and educate yourself on when it was used, who it applies to, and why/by who it was used. In short, tajik is a synonym to persian, a turkic word much like how persian is a greek word - the term describes those who spoke persian as a primary language and were born to parents who spoke the language. A tajik, in short is any iranic who is born to persian speaking parents and speaks persian as a primary language - primarily in central asia, though the term tajik extended to farsi speaking individuals in iran as well at several points throughout history for varying durations.

If you don't want to read all of this, my advice is that ghori and firdausi are removed from the gallery.

Rudaki: was born in central asia (modern day tajikistan), spoke persian as a primary language, was born during the era of the samanids where the concept of the turk and the tajik existed.

Ferdowsi: although living most of his life in afghanistan, as well as referring to himself/his people as tajiks, I will for the sake of appeasement say that because he was born in iran and not central asia you can say he's not by the primary definition, a tajik, although the term was definitely applicable to him during his time.

Rumi, Biruni, Jami, Avicenna, Khusraw, Khwarizmi Khujandi (guy was literally born in khujand), Samani: same argument as rudaki - these people were ALL born during a time where the term tajik was well within place and common, in central asia, spoke persian, were born to persian speaking parents

Ghori: this is someone who was definitely not a tajik, he was not born to persian speaking parents and in fact needed a translator, if anything he was from a local tribe of ghor - though it is important to mention he was a patron of persian.

It is also not clear whether or not hamassa kohistani is a tajik or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Note I have blocked Scytsari for one week for deliberately logging out and editing as an IP, after they were warned about further reversions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: user:Franrasyan has added some of the same guys (Persians, Khwarezmians, Ghurids, etc) to the infobox gallery that formerly user:Scytsari was adding who was as a result banned for it. Could he be same guy? Khestwol (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked two days for edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN for the action and for protecting this article but please also restore the last known good version of the article, i.e. the version before the additions by user:Franrasyan. Currently the article is on the wrong version which was against last consensus. Cheers. Khestwol (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• This lengthily discussion is now obsolete, as we agreed on WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There should be no gallery at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested, participate and write your comment here: RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? --Zyma (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tajiks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127081653/http://www.cal.org/co/afghan/apeop.html to http://www.cal.org/co/afghan/apeop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006133509/http://ula.uzsci.net/publishing/ru/etnic.htm to http://ula.uzsci.net/publishing/ru/etnic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006133509/http://ula.uzsci.net/publishing/ru/etnic.htm to http://ula.uzsci.net/publishing/ru/etnic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505153156/http://www.cornellcaspian.com/pub/0010uzbekistan.htm to http://www.cornellcaspian.com/pub/0010uzbekistan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why I have removed that source.[7] Why do you restore it? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And I have added the quote from the original source.[8] country-data.com just copied/ripped its content from the original source.[9] Do not add it again. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I want to assume good faith, so is there an encloypedic reason to use a pejorative anachronistic spelling of “Tajiks”. I haven’t noticed other articles utililizing historical colonial terms are may be deemed offensive due to historical, cultural, and political reasons? If there is modern scholarly usage by what is deemed trustworthy sources, may you please source this?

If not, I nominate to delete this addition to maintain true neutrality. -Bahram Khurasani Jamaas9 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean this? I removed it. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. -Bahram Khurasani - -Jamaas9 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)—

@Jamaas9: There was no need to open a new section for that edit. When you encounter such edits and you think they're wrong, revert them. Just don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello all and good day, just wanted to start a discussion regarding this alternative name for the Tajiks. While it is technically correct and can be supported by Tajikistani scholars who describe themselves as "Tajik-Persian" or "Tajik/Eastern Persian" or some derivative of such, it does not make much sense from the understanding of formal Farsi-e-Dari/Parsi to state Tajiks are "Farsi". If this is not the case with varieties of modern Tajiki Persian let me know, as I am unable to understand their dialect's modern script.

All native Persian-speakers know we do not literally call ourselves "Persian" as in "Farsi" either historically or currently in any of the places where Persians/Tajiks live. We use cognates such as "Iranian", "Tajik", "Tat", etc. Tazik would be the correct technical term in my opinion if we want to use an alternative term to describe "Tajiks" as a cognate for "Persian" but I do not think that this is supported using modern scholarships. If it is, please let me know.

Most people just state that Tajik = Persian (as an alternative title) by the literal definition of literary New Persian and its accepted historical usage by both ancestors of the Tajiks and other people who identify as having native Persian heritage. What do you all think? This is a rather technical linguistic issue so if someone well-versed in linguistics may chip -- much appreciated.

Thanks and kind regards. B. Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The article needs to follow WP:NPOV and if there is a dispute present both sides proportionately to the sources. Some are here.[10] and from Google Scholar, here. It seems disputed, so the article must show the dispute. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdenKZD: Hi EdenKZD, hope you are well. I just wanted to discuss the recent revert regarding Hinduism, and sorry for getting carried away with the edits. Ghorids did have a sizable Hindu population from my understanding, but I can't find an explicit reference that the Hindus were Tajiks in English, so you may be right (too tired to check Persian sources as well ATM). Is there something I am missing from my understanding of this topic? Every reliable source from my knowledge states they followed Buddhism and at least had followers of Hinduism until they became vassals of the Ghaznavids and at that point, they Islamized and propagated Islam. Please let me know if I am incorrect. Quickly, a cursory check on Enclyopedia Iranica doesn't say anything explicit -- so I am trusting your perspective. The WP page does, and there is much evidence of Afghanistan's Hindu heritage but we can't jump to conclusions without RS support. Furthermore, it is unsourced technically, but we have sourced that the Ghorids are most likely Tajik in origin in the main article which was my initial reasoning for that inclusion. Thanks and kind regards. --Jamaas9 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war with you so if you can provide a few sources that Tajiks are Hindus then that's fine. Personally the idea of Tajiks being Hindus is a new one for me. I have not come across this claim in English/Farsi sources. EdenKZD (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A cursory check doesn’t come up with a anything explicit, and thus think your revert still remains as best. Frankly, there are higher priorities things than this imho to clean up. Planning to research and make a list of issues, fact checks, and also find some more updated sources. Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon and Shxahxh: I don't think Shxahxh's edit is wrong.[11] Because in the section Name, it says the term "Tajik" was common in all Persian dialects from Persia/Iran to Central Asia. So what's the point of changing Persian to Dari?[12] --Wario-Man (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: As you say, it "was" common. This is about a contemporary ethnic group, who speak a Persian dialect which is officially labeled as Dari in Afghanistan and as Tajiki in Tajikistan. The lang-prs and lang-tg templates are therefore the correct templates. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

& @Wario-Man, LouisAragon, and Shxahxh: I suggest we either revert back to Persian language as the term Dari language has clear negative political implications towards Tajiks. The term is forcibly used and enforced by the government -- this is almost akin to calling the Rohingya people "Bengalis" against their own will just because its what the Burmese's government promotes. Again, we are here to present objective information, not take part of any political sides. Due to the ongoing Afghan Civil War, and that the Afghan central government is formerly controlled by a non-Persian ethnic group, we should be as a careful as possible. Furthermore, if we are related to any of these countries or any country that colonized/attempted to colonize Tajiks -- we should doubly be mindful that we are not promoting a specific view, especially one associated with negative political connotations, respectfully.

So I suggest Persian language as this still used by the majority of articles related to Afghanistan and the Tajik people. I don't understand how simply the government's will trump their own people/scholars/news media regarding this topic. Personally, as a Tajik (from Kabulistan), it's very frustrating to see that other ethnic Iranians (especially of Persian heritage) promoting the separation of the Persian culture and identity even while scholars/reporters are noting that this done against our will. Again, please be sensitive regarding the Afghan Civil War (along with coerced/forced Turkification of Tajiks in Uzbekistan) and how it impacts the native population in those countries as an English-speaking editor on Wikipedia. We're not here to promote any specific POV regarding an on-going war, and pushing forced terminology just because the government (which scholars have noted their past history of ethnocentrism) determined it as best is promoting a specific POV unless you have enough reliable sources that refute these statement by scholars and Tajiks in the media. We do not simply comply with the will of politicians in academia, at least not in the West. Let's keep that standard within Wikipedia as this is a US-based website. Dari vs Persian (Farsi) is an ongoing political issue -- not one that has been solved. There is a clear history of "Dari" being associated with several different forms of the Persian language by both Western and Eastern Iranians; however, this Afghan government is also promoting Pashto-derived words as "Dari" over the native Persian word. If you need an example, please look up the usage of "university" in modern Dari Persian vs Western Persian. Not long ago, a news reporter was fired for using the Persian word for the university while speaking in Persian instead of the Pashto-derived word, so this has real-life implications. So let's be neutral as Dari is still called "Farsi" predominantly by Tajiks of Afghanistan. It's also their native language/culture/history/heritage/etc especially in regards to New Persian.

@Wario-Man: if we have decided to revert back -- may you please do it if I can't? I occasionally mess up the codes and such, as I am still learning. Thanks and kind regard - B. Khurasani

--Jamaas9 (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: let's talk about this or it may be best to escalate this to someone who can decide. You can't ignore my entire point while promoting political biases. If Dari is the definite preferred and most objective term, then all the other pages need to edited as well. Your "source" is ultimately from a known ethnocentric government. We're not here to perpetuate their political agenda, and Persian is the best term in formal English (the English we have to use in the articles). You are directly promoting fascist policies with your perspective. We can be more neutral. -B Khurasani.

--Jamaas9 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Per cited sources, I think limiting a common name to a dialect (Persian => Dari) is wrong especially since it's not a modern identity and it existed since medieval era. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No reason for this change in 2015.[13] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discovering that and it is good to note that for future editors in case the Dari vs Persian debate opens up again. (Which is reasonable that this discussion becomes more relevant after some stability for the Tajik people/native Persian speakers). Thank you again and appreciate your professional due diligence. Kind regards. --Jamaas9 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The Tajiks are Persian speakers, but this doesn't mean they are necessarily of Iranian origin. In fact, the only other Persian-speaking group in central Asia is the Hazara, who are of Monogolian origin and adopted Persian. All others are called Tajik. Like the peoples around them, the Tajiks have a mixed Iranian-Turkic origin. What makes one Tajik is language, not origin. Vis-à-vis the Hazara, one could say that a Tajik is a "non-Mongolian Persian-speaker from Central Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.144.252 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who originally wrote that, but it was a misconstrued statement since the Iranians originated in Central Asia and migrated southward and not the other way around. It's been fixed now. DA1 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: "with homelands in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan." or should it be "with present-day homelands in..."? Since how the term is used in the contemporary context (which is what that statement was talking of), I would presume the latter. Because the historical usage didn't necessarily involve those three countries alone (the use of Roman for contrast means it may have been used in Iraq/Levant as well). Alternately, how far does one's "homeland" go back? (one could say Central Asia as a whole is homeland). I'm only bringing this up because everyone seems fixated on reverting to preexisting versions of the article, but I'm reading it and seeing grammatical issues and connotations in the older version as the subtle meanings are very different. DA1 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I would also go with your latter proposal. Please feel free to change it in the article or let me know if you prefer me to do it. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Appreciate the response. I would like you to do it if you may, just revert to my last version (I don't want to seem like a problematic editor reverting everyone). I would like to make it clear that I've meticulously observed the grammar and language of the lede in comparison to what existed before. I haven't removed any sourced info, on the contrary I've: 1. fixed the language and wording, 2. added missing info about the Pamiris and Yaghnobis of Tajikistan that was previously left out, backed with citation. I have more info to add but for now it's a wait-and-see for who objects to what. DA1 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"ethnolinguistic designation" is unnecessary and sounds WP:OR. We don't use it for articles like this one. See how Encyclopedia Iranica defines Tajik:[14]

• The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān). Most Tajiks in the Pamirs (including about 34,000 in the Tašqorḡān district of the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region in southwestern China) are native speakers of several Eastern Iranian languages of the Pamir group (those in Tajikistan use Persian as an administrative and contact language, while those in China (speakers mainly of Sarikoli and Wakhi) generally do not know Persian, and use Uighur and Chinese in dealings with their neighbors.

Plus the lead has already clarified other usage:

• In China, the term is used to refer to its Pamiri ethnic group, the Tajiks of Xinjiang, who speak the Eastern Iranian Pamiri languages.[19][20] Similarly in Tajikistan, since the 1939 Soviet census, its small Pamiri and Yaghnobi ethnic groups are included as Tajiks.[21]

I will change the intro per Iranica. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Thanks very much for correcting that. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: That's because I added that second statement (you quoted) as I note earlier; it was literally reverted not long before I made my above comment, which I then wrote partly in response to it. DA1 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at revision history and noticed that, thanks for your contribution. I want to mention one more point. This is N-th time I see a section like this IP's comment here and the whole claim is wrong and pure personal analysis, e.g. calling Hazaras Mongols who just adopted Persian language, Ignoring Mongolian influence in Central Asia (especially among ethnic groups like Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs, and creating Iranian-Turkic-only origin for all Central Asians. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Speaking of that, peoples in parts of Central Asia certainly do have Mongol mixture genetically, but as an ethnic group they're not identified as such. Being instead Turkic or Iranic ethnicities, and an "ethnicity" really comes down to self-identification. In any case, I didn't really pay mind to what he had to say about Hazaras or Mongols but I did find the article's "of Iranian origin" statement to be misconstrued since the language implies Iran as a point of origin. –DA1 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That "of Iranian origin" was a bit confusing (not clarifying meta-ethnicity properly) although it linked to the right article. Now the lead is similar to other articles about ethnic groups. However I prefer "native to" instead of "present-day homelands". See Dutch people and Belarusians as examples. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: The hyperlink doesn't really offset the wording because you need to consider that the average reader often isn't even aware "Iranian" is a broad ethnic family. As for that Belarusian article, it seems to be kind of poorly sourced even in the body. As a sidenote I'll point out that articles involving Eastern Slavs and Russia are heavily politicized/undueweight. There is a deliberate attempt at minimizing mentions of pre-Slavic ethnic groups and Russian Empire/Soviet-era genocides. For example many articles downplay the native Circassians (genocided in the 1800s), and others the Crimean Tatar genocide (exiled in the 1940s). I much rather prefer users edit them for dueweight/NPOV, instead of using them as some sort of reference point. Articles on Xinjiang/Uighurs is another one with a lot of pro-China pov. –DA1 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say those articles are perfect or unbiased. My point was about how they introduced ethnic group and meta-ethnicity (writing style/formatting of lead section). I'm OK with your cleanup and simplifying[15], but why did you remove Zoroastrianism and Buddhism? They were religion of Tajiks' ancestors (Bactrians and Sogdians). Any specific reason for your removal? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: The infobox normally includes current stats of the population, including the religion. Although I have seen some where historical is included for religion section. However, even if we opt for that, there is an issue: the Tajik ethnicity is specifically a post-Sassanid (and post-Umayyad) ethnicity, because prior to the Islamic empires the region were Eastern Iranian speaking, namely the Bactrians, Sogdians and Khwarezmians. So it's actually referring to the religion of those ethnic groups. DA1 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense. And there's no need to ping me every time because I edit and watch this article since 2012.[16] So I don't miss/forgot anything. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I'm not sure if the Tajik identity precludes their historical religions, as there are still Central Asian Zoroastrian (they are crypto-Zorastrian) known as Tajiks. Also, other related Central Asian ethnicities such as Uzbek mention their ancestor's Iranian religion even though they are ethnically Turkic. The Ghorids appear to be classified as a Tajik by scholarly consensus even though they were initially Buddhist. No academic source mentions being "Muslim" as part of the "Tajik" identity.

I also suggest putting some sort of clarification for the languages. It should be something like --

″Persian (Dari and Tajiki)

Secondary languages: Pashto, Russian, and Uzbek.″

In this region, ethnical identity is usually tied with primary language, noth genetics or any other factor. (Educated/Urban) Tajiks are usually bilingual in Pashto in Afghanistan, Russian in Tajikistan, and Uzbek in Uzbekistan Right now, the vaguness is a bit misleading IMHO. What do you all think? HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)<--- blocked sock of User:Jamaas9 (see also; [17][18])

I'm not saying being Muslim is part of the Tajik identity, if there is citation for Zoroastrianism being practiced among Tajiks then feel free to add a RS and include Zoroastrian as part of the infobox as minority. But the religions of the Bactrians and Sogdians shouldn't be added to infobox of "Tajiks". Most infoboxes don't include "Historical/ancestral" religion and when they do it doesn't include their ethnic predecessors', but rather that specific ethnicity the topic (article) is about. DA1 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the word "Tajik" really means just "Iranian" (ethnically) if we are going to do a very straight translation. Tajiks themselves consider these part historical Iranian religions as part of what it means to be "Tajik"...I notice that ethnicities like Uzbeks do retain their historical religon as this is how Uzbeks define themselves. With that said, I don't have strong feelings either way about the historical religions. The languages, however, should be changed and will submit a change request for that to make it a bit clearer. -- HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)<--- blocked sock of User:Jamaas9 (see also; [19][20])

It's also contradicting itself because the article's section in Uzbeks says they practiced Manichaeism, but the infobox doesn't even list it. Tajik in the sense of what this article is about isn't about all Iranian peoples but a specific one. For all Iranians, Wikipedia has Iranian peoples. For Bactrians and Sogdians, there exists articles on those. DA1 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofTheAryans: Tajik =/= Iranian. Tajik appeared in medieval sources and referred to Persian-speaking groups. Older endonyms such as Dehqan and Aryan existed before appearance of name Tajik (see also Sart). For the religion, I don't see any notable stuff on articles like Demographics of Afghanistan, Religion in Afghanistan, Demographics of Tajikistan, and Religion in Tajikistan. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is something that you can check with linguistics, but Tajik definitely has been used to refer to either specifically sedentary Persian-speaking Iranics or just Iranics as a whole (this was usually done by Turks). Same with Dehqan or Aryan -- they are not language specific. Modern usage now restricts to just Eastern Iranics. With all this said, what is the logic with keeping Western Iranians such as Hafez when this page is talking about the modern demographic? When I removed him before and it was reverted -- was told this was a pure POV issue. He is not a native of Greater Khorasan. This appears irredenist for both sides (Iranian Persians + Tajiks). --HistoryofTheAryans (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)<--- blocked sock of User:Jamaas9 (see also; [21][22])

I) No WP:OR, you need reliable sources for your claims. II) That part of article is unsourced since 2014 and 2015 so I remove it. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tajikistani boys.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tajik girls on holiday Navruz.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ismaili somoni dushanbe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, about the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks , I cannot edit it due to semiprotected. Can you make some change please?

 On the right corner Afghanistan section: currently Afghanistan population are 37,135,840, my reference for Afghanistan population are (https://www.populationpyramid.net/afghanistan/2019/) and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html).  my reference for Afghanistan ethnic group composition are (http://www.gavilan.edu/geca/Honors_English_II/Honors_English_II/The_Kite_Runner_files/Ethnicities%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf) . Therefore,27% of 37,135,840 should be 10,026,676. While 33% of 37,135,840 is 12,254,827. Can you change it either to 10,026,676 or 12,254,827? Or 10 million or 12.2 million is fine. 

 On the right corner Tajikstan section: currently Tajikistan population are 9,275,827, my reference for Tajikistan population are (https://www.britannica.com/place/Tajikistan)( https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/tajikistan-population/)(https://www.populationpyramid.net/tajikistan/2019/),  my reference for Tajikistan ethnic group composition are https://www.indexmundi.com/tajikistan/ethnic_groups.html). Therefore, 84.3% of 9275,827 should be 7,819,488. Can you change it to either 7,819,488 or 7.8 million?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC) 

Hi, if before removal of text tags like citations needed are inserted it would be better. I hope our friends will appreciate one must be given a chance to make his case. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

> The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and >parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir Mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and >northeastern Afghanistan and western Afghanistan (Badaḵšān, Kābol, Herat, Balkh, Mazar-i-Sharif, Ghazni and other urban regions)

Is incorrect information. Tajiks are not Iranian, there is a huge difference between them The https://iranicaonline.org contains biased misleading information by the iranian authors.

Regarding Tajiks, the Encyclopædia Britannica states:

> The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern >Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st-millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient >population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). Over the course of time, the >eastern Iranian dialect that was used by the ancient Tajiks eventually gave way to Farsi, a western dialect spoken in Iran and >Afghanistan.[32]

Is incorrect citation as the reference does not contain this text. There are some biased iranian authors who try to mislead readers with this incorrect information.

> Location > The Tajiks are the principal ethnic group in most of Tajikistan, as well as in northern and western Afghanistan, though there are > more Tajiks in Afghanistan than in Tajikistan. Tajiks are a substantial minority in Uzbekistan, as well as in overseas communities. > Historically, the ancestors of the Tajiks lived in a larger territory in Central Asia than now.

Uzbekistan have actually the majority of the tajik/tojik people. They are saying they are Uzbeks due to pressure made during the Islam Karimov and the communist regime. The edit was reverted and information is invalid in this section. Zafarella (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusing sources you don't like as "biased misleading information by the iranian authors" is not an argument. Not that it matters, but ironically the majority of the authors in Iranica are non-Iranians. Either bring sources (your personal opinion is irrelevant) to the table or leave this article alone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zafarella: Read WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOR carefully. The article is well-sourced, Iranica is WP:RS, Iranian = Iranian peoples = Iranic peoples (it does not mean citizen of Iran or someone from Iran), see also Iranian languages. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)