Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 15 July 2015

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia High‑importance Tajiks is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Afghanistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tajikistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Zoroastrianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Demography of Afghanistan: Afghanistan, history of Afghanistan, Afghan (name), Pashtun people, Tājik people, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 502359870, ISBN 9786130061432.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Gender imbalance in the infobox

The infobox presents 25 famous Tajiks, selected at random. The gender imbalance is quite scandalous as there are 23 men and only 2 women. I'd move that at least 1/3 should be women, there really is no reason to push such a strong gender imbalance, so 5-6 men could be replaced by 5-6 Tajik women.Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not even Tajiks. Eg - Ferdowsi's birthplace is located in Iran and he wrote in Persian. 99.229.119.114 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is true, many of the people in the gallery image are not tajiks. Akmal94 (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Akmal94

Problem in gallery and request for this article to be moved

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 . See 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 . Elspamo4 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Akmal94: The procedure for requesting moving a page is set forth at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Iran, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Central Asia, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Afghanistan, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tajikistan, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pakistan, and perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Who should be included in the infobox and why

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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• High-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Afghanistan articles
• Low-importance Afghanistan articles
• WikiProject Afghanistan articles
• B-Class Tajikistan articles
• Low-importance Tajikistan articles
• WikiProject Tajikistan articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Low-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Zoroastrianism articles
• Low-importance Zoroastrianism articles
• WikiProject Zoroastrianism articles