Talk:History of Tajikistan

Comments
I removed some "talk" from the article itself, as follows Mdmcginn 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC): [edit] Qarakhanids (999–1211) and Khwarezmshahs (1211–1218)

After the collapse of Samanid Dynasty Central Asia became the battleground of many Asian invaders who came from the north-east. (Seems a trifle inadequate, but I suppose we are dealing with the Tajiks here).

The Mongols and their successors (1218–1740)

Mongol Empire (1218–1370)

The Mongol Empire swept through Central Asia invaded Khorezm and sacked the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand, looting and massacring people everywhere. ‘‘ (Equally, Much more needed)

The causes for Tajik Civil War are rediculous (especially regarding the lack of educational base???). Tajikistan can boast with a number of educational establishments which were among the top educational establishments in former USSR. The four factors that lead to civil war are generally accepted by whom??? Seems the author does not have a clue on what he/she has written. The conclusion is somewhat biased towards turkic nations since it doubts Tajikistan's capacity to build a democratic state. Turkic nations in Central Asia are currently the most repressive (Uzbekistan is a good example). Tajikistan is the only country that has a real opposition in the government. Moreover there is more independent media in this country than in any other country in Central Asia.


 * Well, You might be right regarding points made against the 4 factors, amd the presence of opposition in the government; however, I would like to hear more about the media independence. -Mudak


 * P.S. You should read the History of Uzbekistan. It seems to me that somebody just copied the history of Tajikistan and merely pasted it in a different page, following with a short editing.


 * First, the media claim the editor makes above is absurd. Free media in Tajikistan is far weaker than in, say, Kyrgyzstan (which is easily the most free in this respect). Secondly, the opposition claim is equally silly: has the editor never heard of the Tulip Revolution? Has he not been reading the news and noticing how Kyrgyz politics has centered around the very visible activities of the opposition parties since that revolution, and whether or not these activities will result in a second coup? Lastly, while Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are all pretty authoritarian to varying degrees, Kyrgyzstan is not at all, so the statement, "Turkic nations in Central Asia are currently the most repressive", is inaccurate. -- Hux 09:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Period
The Soviet Section is, for lack of a better word, bad. To begin,The Tajik SSR did not have ANY official language. The section spends most of its time on the fate of Tajiks in Uzbekistan, and says almost nothing about Tajikistan itself, other than the statement concerning independence (which ought to be referenced). Crocodilicus 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And, come to think of it, the Soviet Government did invest quite alot of time and effort in developing Tadjikistan. It is true that starting from the 1950s development fell far behind the other republics, but saying that development of the republic was ignored, as the main Tadjik article claims, is misleading. Crocodilicus 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Birth of "Tajik Nation" coincedent with rise of Samanids?
The claims made here that a "Tajik Nation" was formed upon the birth of the Samanid dynasty is, as usual, dubious and ethno-nationalist. It should be removed from the Samanid section as soon as possible, or properly validated with reliable citations. Cheers--Jhelyam (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

maps
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atillata601 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Periods
The Shaybanids, Janid dynasty Khanate of Bukhara are all Turkic state or Turkicized state. Even modern Mongols don't consider them as Mongol states!!!. Identity of the Timurid Empire not clear!!!. Polaer (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Change dating system to Common Era
I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Before you go changing AC BC please read Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)