Talk:Tajiks (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Request
Who and for what reason keeps removing the picture of Ahmad Shah Massod which is along side others?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.55.75 (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

request for improvements to article
This article is very-very wrong and probably is written by an uneducated person, it is also very old please take it from this site. Tajiks are Arians the original inhabitants of Central Asia. They spoke Eastern-Iranian Languages prior to conquest of Arabs. Tajik name come from Persian word "Taj" meaning Crown. It meant crownies or royal nation probably indicating their nobelity and or superiority over new-comers, Turks. Later this name was given to all sedentary muslims which were arabs and sogdians (Tajik ancestors) thus later it became solely refered to Iranian speaking population. The reason Tajiks started to speak Dari is because Samanid kings tried to revive the ancient history of Arian and thus one of the way to create unity and revival they saw having common language. Dari became the common language for Persians and Estern Iranians. In fact this short unity best known in history as the peak of civilization in Eastern Middle Ages that produced many world-wide famous scholars. like Avicenna, Algfarabius, Dzhami, Rudaki, Beruni, Omar Khayam, Firdowi to name a few

Dear editor of this web-site Please remove this aritcle or upgrade it with newest information. I am as Tajik ashamed to read it.


 * The thing is that anybody can modify articles, so you, and the guy below, can add stuff or change anything that's wrong, and it's of course always better if you provide reliable sources.
 * Also, to anybody, this article could use the ethnicity template, and if someone knows the estimated Tajik population, it would be a good thing to add.

Biased article
The Article is unfortunately not accurate.It is biased,...the reason might be that the person who uploaded the article might have been an Iranian Persian, no offence to anybody but history is a big deal to the people of this region and there is a certain level of rivalry going on amongst us.So all i ask from the people in charge is to try and neutralise this article.Thanks

What is biased about the article? It accurately describes the Tajiks and there history. I think your objection is from the statement that Tajiks are Persian. Tell me, what is the difference between the Tajik of Central Asia and the Persian of Iran? Both people speak the same language, have the same literary tradition, same cultural habits, and same history. The only difference is political. The difference is similar to that of the Germans. In that, the northern Germans are predominantely Protestant, while the southern Germans are predominantly Catholic. The Persians of Iran are predominantly Shi'e, while the Persians of Central Asia are predominantly Sunni.


 * In addition, in some cases but not all there is more documented genetic admixture from Turkic-Mongol groups and the Persians of Iran and the Persians of Central Asia have interacted with various other groups and have diverged historically in many cases in the past, while also converging. The dialect also varies, but more to the point, one can acknowledge the similarities and differences without too much problem I think.  In this case, the Tajiks are mainly related to and linked to larger 'Persian' people, but also have regional distinctions.  Fair enough?  Tombseye 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there are regional distinctions. There is no ethnic group that does not exhibit regional distinctions. But, Persian speakers in Central Asia are grouped collectively together as "Tajik," when, obviously, there are differences between a Tajik from Herat, Afghanistan and a Tajik from Bukhara, Uzbekistan. Also, Shi'a Tajiks make up a significant minority in Central Asia (especially Herat). So, every region has its own distinct cultural markers, but that does not discount the greater general similarities Persians from Iran and Central Asia share. Persians, being a primarily urban dwelling population, tend to identify more with the urban region they are from (Tehrani, Herati, Isfahani, Bukhari, etc.). However, this does not downplay the obvious similarities that make the Persians of Iran and Central Asia a single ethnos. Gradually, with the aide of the internet and the trend of secularization (especially in Iran), Persian speakers are beginning to recognize each other as the same people.

I'm not too sure what genetic admixture has to do with ethnicity in the Middle East/Central Asia. Traditionally, amongst urbanized Iranian peoples(Persians, Sogdians), ethnicity was solely determined by how one idenitified themselves. Persian history is filled with examples of foreigners accepting and assmilating Persian culture and being recognized as Persians. The ethno genesis(language, culture, religion) of the modern Persian people (in Iran and Central Asia)comes from the mixture of Persians fleeing the Arab/Islamic onslaught into Central Asia with the native Iranian peoples of Central Asia (primarily the Sogdians). The historical region of Khorasan (Central Asia and Eastern Iran) is the homeland of the modern Persian, not the province of Fars in Iran (the ancestral home of the pre-Islamic Persians). Even the modern Persian language is a sort of pidgin of Pahlavi (the language of the Sassanians) and Sogdian. In fact, until the coming of the Samanids, western Iran (including the Isfahan valley, the Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges) were described by Arab geographers as still speaking the Pahlavi language. The modern Persian language spread into the urbanized areas once this new language become adopted as the lingua franca of Central Asia.

-If you ask me, I believe ethnicity is dependent on three things: philology, history, and culture. Race, in my mind, plays a secondary role. People who are similar/identical in the first three categories but differ greatly in the last are still of the same ethnicity, regardless. I think this can apply to the Tajiks. I think we have established that Tajik is for the most part a dialect of the Persian language rather than a separate tongue. Tajik, Dari and Farsi speakers can understand each other really REALLY well, maybe with a few difficulties in inflection due to dialectal variation, but still, overall the same. I've seen all three types of speakers in Pakistan (I unfortunately dont speak Persian in any form) and they all can claim to understand one another quite fine. Now there is history. The region of Tajikistan was for the most part, an eastern extension of the ancient Persian empires (unless if I'm wrong, someone please back me up). Persian culture was predominate in these regions. Persian in its Pahlavi form was predominate in both regions in pre-Islamic times. With the arrival of the Arabs, this language was replaced by the fusion that led to modern Persian, however branching out. Tajikistan, due to receiving Arab influence and adopting Persian sunni culture, embraced the new Persian language and that became the lingua franca. Many of the famous Persians of this period, including Avicenna? and Rum ( I thought Rumi was Afghan Persian, but I'm not sure) and some others were native to this region and Persian civilization was the nor here. Overtime, though, a gradual cut off from mainstream Persia left the Tajiks open to heavy Turko-Mongol influence that helped mold the Central Asian Persians to develop an identity slightly different from their brethern on the Iranian plateau. So for the most part, there is still a strong historical connection. Now cultural. I think I already covered this in the historical debate but I will go over it again, Persian culture with Islam was the norm throughout southern Central Asia, be it Samarkand, Bukhara, Herat, etc. Tajikistan was no exception. Also, Pre-Islamic Persian culture thrived here throughout much of its history as part of the Sassanian, Parthian, and Achaemenian empires. So Tajiks have enough philological, historical and cultural connections with the Persians to be considered a Central Asian branch of the Persians. Now comes the most debated part; race. When I think of this debate, I use the example of a people who are spread out and have different geographical branches that racially tend to look anything but alike; Arabs. Arabs as an ethnic group are spread out throughout Southwestern Asia, both the Arabian peninsula, and the Levant and in Northern and eastern Africa. Racially, the Arabs do not look alike but culturally they are generally the same. Racially an Arab from Morrocco is different than an Arab from the UAE. An arab from Lebanon is fairer skinned and more European looking than an Arab from Oman, who may be from light to dark brown, with black hair and looking something similar to a South Asian. And, most radically, an Arab from Kenya or Zanzibar or Sudan is almost completely racially removed from all these other Arabs other than for a few drops of Arab blood. These Arabs would be more sub-Saharan African looking. So much racial difference yet they all have the same culture, values, and language. I knew two Arabs in school, one Palestinian and one Sudanese, and they both looked really different yet saw each other as the same ethnicity, shared the same values, customs, music cultural habits, etc. Likewise, the relationship between the Tajiks and the Persians are the same in my mind. The Tajiks are racially descended from other Iranian groups and from various Turkic groups may tend to look more Caucasoid/Mongoloid, yet culturally, philologically and historically are identical to the Persian people and as much a part of Persian culture. That is how I see it, which may be wrong, but, hey, that's what I can tell from studying this history. So can other people as well. Hope my bits of info can be of some help. Afghan Historian 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)]]

absolutely BS stinky Pashtun. Tajiks of tajikistan are related to Turks just by 3%. Did you ever analized a dna-record?? To 97% they are indo-europeans. They also have not an persian culture because in the ancient the people of modern tajikistan spoke the same language..just their langauge differed accentually from the western iranian language. The had also the same culture and identity. Like dariuosh codmannus said, bactrians, sogdians, persians ect. are all one greater tribe just cut by geography.

Ps: Mongols gen-marker are not found till yet in central Asia because they never gave theri y-chromosome to other or left children there when mongols moved back to their originally homeland. --88.68.213.164 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkic
1 Ibni Sina (please don't call him Aviccena, because his original name is Ibni Sina) is a Turk. 2 Tajik 's are Turkic peoples of Asia, some of the Turkic tribes spoke a kind of Persian language. Their Persian is not similar to Persia Persian. 3 Mevlana is a Turk also ,in one of his poem, he said that he is a Turk although he speaks Persian His verse is: "Aslem Turkest egerçi Hindu guyem" 4 In Ottoman Turkish there were thousands of Persian words in their language altough they are Turks. 5 Turk is the common name of all the Turkic tribes such as Ugric's, Tuva's, Kazac's, Azeri's, Turkoman's ,Uzbek's, Khirkiz's and Tajik's and more. For the Western people is very difficult to differenciate, Irani and Turani tribes. 6 Safavi and Harezmsah States in persian history were Turkic States. 88.228.3.104 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumi doesn't have such a verse: "Aslem Turkest egerçi Hindu guyem". Please cite a reliable reference.--80.66.181.11 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Tajiks were a Turkic people, but I didn't see anything about that in the article. Gringo300 29 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)


 * That would be because they're not. They're the only major ex-Soviet Central Asian group that aren't Turkic. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

Merge articles
The Tajiks of China are a group that is quite distinct from the Tajiks of Tajikistan or the Tajiks of Afghanistan. I'm in favour of explaining these differences, not in favour of merging the articles. Babelfisch 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I just realized that took place and you're absolutely correct. The Tajiks in China have a distinct identity from those to the west.  It's a shame that the article was merged.  Tombseye 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic rivalries have no place in an encyclopedia
Now here is one of the weaknesses of wikipedia. Some clown claims (and I directly quote) Pakistan's "dirty name doesn't belong in this article" and keeps deleting the documented figures that show that at least half a million Tajiks live in western Pakistan, which is substantially more than those in western China. This is endemic throughout wikipedia, which nonetheless is a popular resource for people, but is ruined by idiots who think they can re-write reality and vent their personal animosity by deleting things that make them upset. I understand that there has been a rivalry between the Tajiks and Pashtuns and that the welcome in Pakistan was more directed towards the Pashtuns and the support for the Taliban came from Pashtuns from both sides of the border and this has angered many Tajiks (this and alleged ISI involvement and interference in Afghanistan, which to be fair has also come from Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia etc.), but one can't blame entire peoples for what some do and nor can reality be re-shaped. I've seen this as well with the Iranian Persians who do not view Tajiks as real Persians and this goes back and forth. This becomes a never-ending cycle and like I said is the major weakness of wikipedia and possibly an insurmountable one unless people can work together more and perhaps after a point lock articles that are pretty much complete and get special permission to make alterations that could be mutually agreed upon. Just my two cents. Tombseye 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect in the hope that the anon has moved on. Let me know if it starts up again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Tajik population in Tajikistan
I was the one who changed the population of Tajiks in Tajikistan from 2.5 million to 4.55. I don't think a citation is necessary because that's what the CIA estimates point to, (Estimates currently being cited as reliable by wikipedia itself). The population of Tajikistan according to the CIA World Factbook is 7.1 million while Tajiks make up 65% of the population. A lil maths and you will have the figure there. User:Casimiri

Physical characteristics
Like the dispute at Turkic peoples, this section should be sourced or removed. SouthernComfort 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The man in the picture does not appear to be Tajik. Please get a picture of another Tajik person.

Disputed section
The section "Application of the term" is completely unsourced. Auca m anTalk 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples
Aucaman, please don't remove this for now. Things are still being discussed at Talk:Iranian peoples, and it's pretty obvious that the Tajiks are related to most other "speakers of Iranian languages". --Khoikhoi 18:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

'Tajiks'in Iran
'Even Persians in Iran who live in the Turkish-speaking parts of the country call themselves "Tajik".'

Is this really true? I've never heard it. Citation please?

86.8.109.89 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They do not call themselvs "Tajik", but they are called "Tajiks" by certain Turkic-speaking peoples. Even during the Safavid era, the Persians were called "Tajiks" by the Turkic-speakers. See Encyclopaedia Iranica oder Encyclopaedia of Islam for more details. Here is an extract, taken from the Encyclopaedia of Islam: Tajik 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard that before either, don't think it should be added72.196.229.15 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sart, Tajik, and Fars
All these 3 words are synonyms, not necessairily for an ethnic group, but certainly for certain "civilization" and "way-of-life" (comparable to "American").

The following is taken from the article Sart:

"... "Sart" seems to have originated as a term used by nomads to describe settled people and town dwellers, from the Indic root Sarthavaha meaning a merchant or caravan-leader (related to the modern Hindi word Seth). It probably entered Uyghur from Soghdian in the 8th or 9th centuries AD. The earliest known use of the term is in the Turkic book Kudatku Bilik ("Blessed Knowledge"), dated 1070, where it refers to the settled population of Kashgaria, and in this period it apparently could be used to refer to all settled Muslims of Central Asia, Persian or Turkic-speaking. Rashid al-din in the Jami' al-Tawarikh writes that Genghis Khan commanded that Arslan Khan, prince of the Muslim Turkic Qarluqs, be given the title "Sartaqtai", which he considered to be synonymous with "Tajik". ... In the post-Mongol period the meaning of the term seems to have changed: Ali Sher Nawa'i refers to the Iranian people as "Sart Ulusi", and for him "Sart tili" was a synonym for the Persian language. Similarly when Babur refers to the people of Margelan as "Sarts", it is in distinction to the people of Andijan who are Turks, and it is clear that by this he means Persian-speakers. He also refers to the population of the towns and villages of the vilayat of Kabul as "Sarts". ..."

Tajik 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

They were synonyms in a particular time period Tajik. If you want to mention Sart in the article do mention it in context i:e in the medieval post Genghis Khan period. From the same article:

"The earliest known use of the term is in the Turkic book Kudatku Bilik ("Blessed Knowledge"), dated 1070, where it refers to the settled population of Kashgaria, and in this period it apparently could be used to refer to all settled Muslims of Central Asia, Persian or Turkic-speaking."

"It is thus very difficult to attach a single ethnic or even linguistic meaning to the term "Sart". Historically the various Turkic and Persian peoples of Central Asia were identified mostly by their lifestyle, rather than by any notional ethnic or even linguistic difference. The Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Turkmens were nomads, herding across steppes, mountains and sand deserts, respectively. The settled Turks and Tajiks, on the other hand, were Sarts, as they either lived in cities such as Khiva, Bukhara or Samarkand, or they lived in rural agricultural communities."

"It seems that, in Khorezm at least, Sarts spoke a form of Persianised Oghuz Turkic whilst Uzbeks spoke a Kipchak dialect closer to Kazakh. In Fergana Sarts spoke a Qarluq dialect that was very close to Uyghur and is, indeed, the ancestor of modern ‘Uzbek’. In 1924 the Soviet regime decreed that henceforth all settled Turks in Central Asia would be known as 'Uzbeks', and that the term 'Sart' was to be abolished as an insulting legacy of colonial rule. The language chosen for the new Uzbek SSR was not, however, Uzbek, but 'Sart'."

"‘Sart’ was also commonly employed by the Russians as a general term for all the settled natives of Turkestan. There was a great deal of debate over what this actually meant, and where the name came from. Barthold writes that “To the Kazakh every member of a settled community was a Sart whether his language was Turkish or Iranian”. N.P. Ostroumov was firm in his conviction that it was not an ethnic definition but an occupational one, and he backed this up by quoting some (apparently common) local sayings: “A bad Kirghiz becomes a Sart, whilst a bad Sart becomes a Kirghiz”. omerlivesOmerlives 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to modify the text. But the term "Sart" shoud be mentioned. Tajik 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Collage
The image collage in the article only shows men. There should be an image of a woman as well to balance out things. I propose this picture be included in the collage: Image:Hammasa np5 Kopie.gif

--Zereshk 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture is already included in the article ;) Tājik 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then lets get a different picture of her. Or lets get a picture of another ethnic Tajik women.User:Tajik-afghan

Update
I updated the number of Tajiks in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.Iranian Patriot 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need a map of the distribution of the Tajik ethnic group
I suggest this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tajik_ethnic_map.jpg

(I already added this, but for some reason, the user Tajik keeps reverting it)


 * The map is fake. Tājik 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I see.

That is a good map but it is not showing any Tajik population in Pakistan while we all know, there are more than 1.5 Million Tajiks living in Northern Areas of Pakistan- Gilgit and surrounding areas.

We need a better map.. The population of Tajiks in Uzbekistan and Pakistan are often below what they should be.. In Uzbekistan, many Tajiks are recorded as being Uzbek and this is being done actively on the part of the Government and various departments. In Pakistan the figures are even more blurred, Pakistan is believed to have a sizeable Tajik population, more recent data suggests anywhere upto 2 million or more plus people of Tajik decent and that doesnt include the refugees of Tajik decent from Afghanistan or the Tajik's from Tajikistan who have been settling in the country. This does not appear to be deliberate as is occuring in Uzbekistan or China. This may be due to the fact that the refugees dont have official documentation and are not counted in the census, and the fact that most Tajik's in Pakistan are bilingual and can speak Shina, Khowar, Pashto, Panjabi, Kashmiri and Urdu and as such, there is no Tajik column on Pakistani identity forms and most Tajik's just tick off the other more dominant groups to which they are partially affiliated with. In Uzbekistan the situation is very serious as the government is suppressing the official numbers of actual Tajiks when in fact they may be in significant majority. On a smaller scale, In western China, Tajiks figures are also suppressed alongside figures for the Uigur population.

Biruni's picture is useless
whats the point of having Biruni's picture up there? its not as if Biruni is an easily recognized person. and the picture is black and white. that picture should be removed. but Biruni should be mentioned somewhere.


 * Biruni is certainly more important than Hammasa Kohistani who is hardly recognized as "Tajik", or Ahmad Shah Massoud who himself has never considered himself "Tajik" or any important for the Tajiks as a nation.
 * al-Biruni is the father of modern geography and historgraphy, he is considered as one of the greatest scholars ever, and even certain asteroids and certain regions on the moon are named after him.
 * The term "Tajik" has for centuries been a synonym for the cultured and educated urban population of Central-Asia ... therefore, these scientists and scholars have to be shown in the picture as a symbol for the Tajik people. And since Rumi, Khwarizmi, ibn Sina, and Biruni are the most famous among the Tajik scholars of the past, their pictures are an absolute necessity.
 * Tājik 10:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think we should put their pictures in the article, not at the top. At the top we should give the reader an idea of what a Tajik looks like. And Biruni's picture does not do that. So I think we should put Biruni's picture in the article, not at the top. What do you think?

The images may be and most probably are authentic, but by what stretch of imagination does the writer of Kitab-Ul-Hind, Abu Raihan Abu Muhammad Al Bairuni(here named Biruni) a Khwarzami from Khiveh become a Tajik? And the same question goes on to the wrong classification of Maulana Jalaluddeen Rumi ethnically an Azerbaijani, shown here as a Tajik.Lutfullah 05:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Lutfullah


 * Rumi was born in Balkh. Azerbijan and Balkh are very far apart. There were no Azerbaijanis in Balkh. Balkh was Tajik. And Biruni was indeed from Khwarzam, but Khwarzam was a very large area, including mostly Tajik areas. Also, he lived in the Samanid dynasty which was centered in Samarqand which is a Tajik city.

Obviously you have never been to Khorazm, and therefore claim that it includes mostly Tajik areas. There are no Tajiks in Khorazm. No one speaks Farsi in Khorazm. The population speaks Uzbek, a Turkic language. The ancestors of modern inhabitants of Khorazm were ancient Khwarazmian, who were Iranian. But the simple fact that they were Iranian does not mean that they were Tajik. While Sogdians were ancestors of Tajiks, the Khwarazmians were not. Why not put a picture of sultan Salah ad-Din? He was a Kurd. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. So Salah ad-Din was a Tajik)) How about putting a picture of Otto von Bismark on a page of English people? Bismark was German. English are Germanic people. So, Bismark was English. How about a great Mexican emperor Julius Caesar? Spaniards, French and Italians speak Roman languages. So, it just makes perfect sense to call Julius Caesar a Mexican. Sure, Romans were only one of ancestors of Spaniards, and Mexicans have Native American blood too. So?! Today Khorezmians have Turkic blood too. If we can call Biruni a Tajik we can also call Caesar a Mexican. How about a Canadian writer Shakespear? Or great Korean statesman Tokugawa Ieyasu? Or great Polish czar Ivan the Terrible? Or Swedish dictator Adolf Hitler? Or Charlemagne, emperor of Romania? There are enough great Tajik personalities, why put someone who obviously was not a Tajik. I am not saying that Biruni was a Turk or Uzbek. He was neither a Tajik nor Uzbek. He lived before Uzbeks as we know them today were formed and in the area were Tajiks did not live at that time or anytime after that. Therefore, the Soviet historians call him Central Asian scientist. It is historically correct. Why don't you put a picture of Jami, or Sadriddin Ayni? Ahmad Donish was also a great person, to this day remembered in Bukhara. Ibn Sina is OK. Rudaki is too. But not Khwarizmi or Biruni. It is just wrong. (Feruz Usmon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.17.217 (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC) May the enlightened inserter of the above lines please explain where the province of Rum was in the past, from which Maulana Jalaluddeen is named as Rumi? Was it any where near the Central Asian Balkh region? Lutfullah 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Lutfullah.


 * Rumi is the shorter form of the name Mowlānā-e Rumī or Mowlā-e Rum, a name that was given to him AFTER he moved from Central Asia to Anatolia, back then known as Rum (derived from Roman Empire). His real name was Jalāl ud-Dīn ibn Bahā ud-Dīn Valad-e Balkhī. Tājik 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethymology of Tajik
Hi everybody,

I think that the ethymology of the term Tajik as it appears in the article is wrong. Tajik is from the pahlavi root: Tazik which basically means "foreigner". This term has been developed to both "Tazi" meaning Arab and Tajik meaning foreigners in old Dari. The term is then taken up by turks that began using them to denote the persian speaking people of central asia. Interestingly, the term is still used by Armanians to refer to Anatolian Turks, which they call "Dadzik".

Please give your comments on this.

Arash the Bowman 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I will write this in the text later!

Arash the Bowman 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide your claims with valid sources. Otherwise, your changes will be reverted. The current version is partly based on the information given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Here is an extract: Tājik 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik,

Here is a link from an online encyclopedia citing encyclopedia britannica:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SUS_TAV/TAJIK_or_PARSIWAN.html

Please notice this sentence:

The name itself originally occurs in the Pahlavi writings, and is explained to mean, first, the Arabs in general, then their descendants born in Persia and elsewhere out of Arabia, and, lastly, the Persians in general and their descendants born Turkestan and elsewhere out of Persia

What are, if I may very humbly ask with a thousand pardons begged, Pahlawi writings? As a student of epigraphy in the Institute of Archaeology of the Archaeological Survey of India ( Epigraphia Indo-Islamica )I was taught that the reference to Pahlawi is a classic form of Parsi poetry in the sibq e awwal of the 11th - 13th century (AD) Fars and its adjoining areas. Khwaja Shamsuddeen Hafiz Shirazi writes (Persian: Murghaan i baagh qaafiyeh sanjad wa bazleh gao! Taa khwajeh mei khurad beh ghazal haa i pahlawi ) What has Pahlawi to do with the ethnic classification of Tajiks? LutfullahLutfullah

The parts about armenians using "dadzik" is my own experience with my armenian friends!

Hope this is enough evidence!

Best wishes Arash the Bowman 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly in this case - this is not a reliable source. It is from the 1911 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and therefore no match for the information given the Encyclopaedia of Islam or in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. "Tajik" does not mean "stranger" and is - evidently - derived from the name of the Arab "Tayy" tribe. Tājik 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A map of the distribution of Tajiks is needed.
We need one map that shows the Tajik ethnic group across the various regions. I provided one but some are saying that it is not allowed because it is from a Christian source.

I'd like to ask where in Wiki's rules does it say we cannot use images from Christian sources? And if we cannot use this map, then we need to find another one. I tried to find one but couldnt. So if we cannot use that one, then we should make one. Lets try to do this, I think its very important.

Dīhgān
Dīhgān (or Dihqan دیهگان، دهقان) is drived from Dīha (deh) and means village settler, not urban (its original meaning is head of village). Jahangard 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your direct translation is correct. However, the wider meaning of the word is "urban". It is mainly used by the semi-nomadic peoples of South-Afghanistan. Dīhgān (literarly village settler) - in contrast to nomanic - means urban or not nomadic. The same translation is given the Encyclopaedia of Islam Tājik 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, what's wrong with roughly "village settler" in contrast to "nomadic" or "tribal"? It shows both the translation and the common usage. Jahangard 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the direct translation "village settler" does not reflect the actual meaning of the term. Not the term village is important, but the fact that the Tajiks are urbanized, meaning that they are not nomads and that they do not consist of different tribes.
 * Tājik 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Avicenna and Beruniy
How is it that Avicenna (Ibn Sino) and Beruniy are listed as Tajiks, they were certanly Uzbeks. Some historians think Avicenna has some genes of Tajik, but he is more Uzbek than Tajik, since his parents were Uzbeks, he was born and grew up in area of Uzbekistan. Beruniy however was 100% Uzbek. I do not have references to this, but this is what they teach in school, in Samarkand (yes I'm Tajik), and it is known in almost whole Central Asia (I guess, Tajikistan excluded). So you guys need to do your research and know your roots, also just because people did great things they don't have to be Tajik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 October 2006.


 * Ofcoarse that is what they teach you in school, I am not surprised. The current regime in Uzbekistan is an anti-Tajik Uzbek supremest regime. You are from Samarqand, dont you know about the Andijan massacre. The current regime in Uzbekistan wants to wipe out Tajiks from Samarqand and Bukhara and is currently brainwashing them with Uzbek nationalism. The fact is the rest of the world considers him a Persian. And in today's world those Persians and Persian-speakers living east of Iran are know as Tajiks. Parsiwan 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know all about Uzbekistan's regime and Andijan Massacre, but it is not anti-Tajik, in fact Karimov himself is a Tajik. Also I know well about what they brain-wash young students today, however the fact that Beruniy and Ibn Sino are Uzbeks are certainly not brainwashing. You are right they are considered Persian in many places, but remember that at that time there really was no nationalities called Uzbek or Tajik. Since the Soviet Era many documents of history were destroyed, and only those of that written by Western historians(which in many cases are misunderstood, example: many of them think Amir Temur was mongol) or just told from generations to generations are saved. Therefore many claim heroic persons, such as these, to be their own nationalities, but Ibn Sino, and Beruniy, especially Beruniy, are Uzbek. In their times, those areas were mixed of ethnics, I'm sure you know about it very well, so noble people as these knew many languages. Based on what they speak, a person should not tell someone nationality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 October 2006.


 * Abu Ali Hussein ibn Sina was evidently of Persian stock, wrote some of his works in his Persian mother-tongue, claimed to be Persian, and lived in a time when the Turkic masses had not yet reached his homeland. When the first Turkic dynasty, the Ghaznavid dynasty was created in Khorasan, Ibn Sina - partly a Persian nationalist - left his homeland and moved to to the Buyyid kingdom who were ethnic Persians. There, he spent the rest of his life.
 * And what's most important: the very first Uzbeks arrived in that area roughly 500 years AFTER Ibn Sina with the Sheybanid armies. Before that, there were no Uzbeks at in that region.
 * As for al-Biruni: he was neither Persian nor Uzbek, but Khwarizmian. He has written many of his books in his native Khwarizmian tongue.
 * And since "Tajik" is an overall general term for "Iranian", both of them are correctly stated as "Tajiks". They had absolutely nothing to do with Uzbeks.
 * Tājik 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if you read what I wrote carefully, you would know that I'm aware there were no Uzbeks or Tajiks nationalites at that time. Remember that parts of today's Uzbekistan was Persia, thats why Ibn Sino called himself Persian, as Turks were distinct at the time. As for Beruniy he was Harezmi, and Harezm is part of Uzbekistan, essentially Harezmis are Uzbeks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 October 2006.


 * What you say makes no sense. 30 years ago, the entire region was part of the Soviet Union. So according to your logic, that made Avicenna, Biruni, and Timur Soviets, right?! Or maybe even Russians, correct?!
 * Uzbekistan's national poet (although not an ethnic Uzbek himself), Mir Ali Shir Nava'i, was born and lived in what is now Afghanistan. Does that mean that Nava'i was not an ethnic Uyghur but an Afghan, meaning a Pashtun?!
 * Modern nation-states do not define the ethnic origin of historical people. Avicenna, al-Biruni, and others at that time were ethnic Iranians and took much pride in the new arrived and revived Persian language which they connected with the Iranian kings of the past, thus the name Dari. Although Biruni was not an ethnic Persian but a Khwarizmian (which you wrongly pronounce as "Horezm"), he took much pride in the Persian language, the laanguage of the pre-Islamic kings of Iran.
 * Both, Khwarizmians and Sogdians (Avicenna's possible ethnic origin), are among the most recent ancestors of the Tajiks. In fact, 1000 years ago, all Iranian peoples in Central Asia were known as Tajik and were identified and unified by the literary Persian language of the ruling houses and courts. That's why both of them are correctly described as ethnic Tajiks. Any other description would be wrong.
 * Tājik 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are mixing up Tajikistani and Tajik. Tajik is an ethnolinguistic group, not a nationality. Tajikistani is a nationality. For instance there are Uzbek and Kyrgyz Tajikistanis, then there are are Tajik Tajikistanis. Same thing with Uzbek. Uzbek is an ethnicty, not a nationality. Uzbekistani is a nationality. The word Tajik is a term that refers to all either Persians or native Persian-speakers east of modern day Iran. Back then Avicenna would have been only a Persian, since Tajik did not exist as you said. However, today we can call him both Persian and Tajik by the definition of Tajik.Parsiwan 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, what I'm trying to say is that they are not Tajik, not necessarily that he was Uzbek. Also "Soviet" is not a nationality, I'm not trying to misinform anyone of anything here. No, they aren't Russians either just because the region which they lived in was taken and ruled by Russians. What I'm trying to say is, there were many different nationalities, and as times go by, they change. Those people were in fact Persian, but like I said remember regions of today's Uzbekistan were Persia, they also had close relations (economic, cultural, and other) with today's Iran and Afghanistan, and other regions. Like you, and I said there were no such nationalities as today, Ibn Sino was Persian. So before all people in this area were generally the same, much later as Uzbek nationality emerged in the area, the people changed, but those of Tajik stayed the same to their roots. What I'm saying is, according to the region Ibn Sino was born, if you "traced he's nationality forward in time" it would be the same of Uzbeks, you got to understand the concept when I say Uzbek is not the same of Shaybanids, but just generally the same culture of people, as they were once Persian, just like Tajiks today.

Also I didn't spell "Horezm" incorrectly, thats how the Horezmis today spell it. Khwarizmian is Western way of spelling it, and it makes no difference in the meaning of the word. As for Ali Shir Nava'i, or the correct way to spell it Alisher Navoi (Alisher is a whole name, unlike other names with "Ali") he was born, in today's Afghanistan, but remember like I said, the relationships between those areas were close, and people would move a lot, for different reasons, whether it was for more education, better life, or anything else.


 * Your argumentation still does not make any sense. Even IF people change, that does not change the past. What's important is not who lives in that area today, but who lived there in the past.
 * Besides that, you are giving too much credit to Avicenna's birthplace. As you can read in his biography, his father was a native of Balkh, a city that is now located in Afghanistan. That's where his family was from. That was his real homeland. That'S also the reason why in many sources he is known as Avicenna of Balkh or Abu Ali Sina Balkhi. Being born in a region that became known as "Uzbekistan" 800 years after Avicenna's death does not make him an "Uzbek".
 * As for Khwarizm: you did spell and pronounce it wrong. It's still "Khwārizm" - that's the original and only correct pronounciation of the term, no matter what certain people call it.
 * As for Navā'i: his real name was Nizām ud-Dīn Ali Sher bin Ghiāth ud-Dīn Herawī. Navā'ī was one of his pen-names. It's a Persian word and means "the weeper" - nawā in Persian means tears. His second pen-name was Fānī. He used this one when he wrote his poems in Persian.
 * Tājik 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand what I'm saying, neither of those people are Tajik or Uzbek, as these nationalities didn't exist then. Just because they were Persians doesn't mean they were Tajiks. Yes, I know Tajiks are traced back to Persians, but so are Iranians, so are Afghans, even Uzbeks are traced back to Persians, they were just forced to take up different cultures, "Uzbek" is just a current name of people that live in the same regions as Avicenna and others, and unlike Russians who moved here, they are "natives" even though their customs were slightly altered by whoever took over the regions. As for how you spell Navoi's name you can't argue about it, since their language was written in Arabic. You are talking about the how it is spelled "universally" and it doesn't really matter how you spell it, as people back then who were they talking about by their many different names and spellings, you know who you are talking about anyways. You also need to look up who Horezmiis were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 October 2006.

I don't know what this Uzbek is trying to say. "Uzbek" is not just a current name it is a name adopted from mongols. That is a whole different story. For normal Tajiks to be named a mongol is unacceptable because so many of their forefathers has been slashed by mongols. Avicenna and Beruni were Tajiks there is no doubt about it. Becauase international community is not full like you that just from the air to name somebody Uzbek. Let me tell they are not Persions either why first of all because they were born in Khurasan and not in Persia and second because non of them called themselve Persian. They called themsleve Bacrian and Khorezmian which later became Tajiks. Absolutely nothing connects them not only to Uzbeks but also to Mongols or Turks in a whole. Just bare in mind that people are not fool as you think otherwise you will be seen foolish yourself. arian-tajik

I don't know what this Uzbek is trying to say. "Uzbek" is not just a current name it is a name adopted from mongols. That is a whole different story. For normal Tajiks to be named a mongol is unacceptable because so many of their forefathers has been slashed by mongols. Avicenna and Beruni were Tajiks there is no doubt about it. Becauase international community is not full like you that just from the air to name somebody Uzbek. Let me tell they are not Persions either why first of all because they were born in Khurasan and not in Persia and second because non of them called themselve Persian. They called themsleve Bacrian and Khorezmian which later became Tajiks. Absolutely nothing connects them not only to Uzbeks but also to Mongols or Turks in a whole. Just bare in mind that people are not fool as you think otherwise you will be seen foolish yourself. arian-tajik

Uzbek is the name commonly used to identify settled Turkic-speaking population of Central Asia. Majority of that Turkic-speaking population are descendants of ancient Sogdians just like Tajiks. There was a group of nomads who called themselves Uzbeks who came to Central Asia in 16th century A.D. But they were a mere drop in the sea of settled Turkic and Tajik population of the region. All that's left of them is their name that was adopted by all settled Central Asian Turks and Turkified Iranians. So, Uzbeks of Shaybani Khan and modernd day Uzbeks are two different things. So Abu Ali ibn-Sino and Abu Rayhon Beruniy and Muhammad al-Khorazmiy can be claimed by both Uzbeks and Tajiks. That is why I prefer an identification used by Soviet historians. They never called Beruniy, Khorazmiy, ibn-Sino Uzbek or Tajiks scientists. Instead they used the term: "Central Asian". And I think it is fair. Sure, there is no doubt that Khwarizmians were Iranian people. But Iranian does not mean Persian or Tajik. Kurds are Iranian. So are Pashtuns. Their languages belong to Iranian group. But I doubt any Tajik will be glad to be called a Pashtun or vice versa. I agree that ibn-Sino was most likely what we would call a Tajik. But not al-Khorazmiy or Beruniy. There were never any Tajiks in Khorazm. Khorazm (or Khwarism) is in the western part of todays Uzbekistan and is separated from the rest of the region by a vast desert. Tajiks historically lived in central, southern and western parts of the region such as Samarqand, Bukhara, Ferghana valley together with Uzbeks. Meanwhile none lived in the western part which is Khorazm. Khorazmian population was originally Iranic (as I mentioned above) but were completely Turkified later, and are now called Uzbeks. Even though Khorazm was a part of Persian empire it is wrong to call great scientists of that land "Persian". If you recall it was at one point a part of Arab Caliphate, and Mongol Empire, and Russian Empire. Does it mean that population changed every time the land was conquered??? So why not call Beruniy a Russian or a Mongol. How about calling Saadi a Mongol because he lived when Iran was part of Mongol empire. And if we follow that logic than Firdawsi who was clearly a Persian became a Turk when he ended up at the court of Mahmud Ghaznavi. So the point is, let us not claim those great people of our Central Asia who's ethnicity is unknown. It only creates tension and pointless arguments. I believe those of them who cannot be identified as Tajiks, Uzbeks, Persians should be called Central Asian. Not all Iranic ethnic groups are Persian or Tajik including those who were assimilated by other ethnicities by now. Peace. Musofir.

Vandalism in the Language paragraph?
I think the following should all be deleted or atleast corrected. ''Russian is widely used in government and business in Tajikistan as well. Dari, as Afghan Tajiks call their Persian, has long been the language of commerce in Kabul. Though no official census has ever been made in Afghanistan, an estimated 15% people of Afganistan, after pashtoons 60% to 65% of the total population, are Tajiks. The following link provides a very useful insight about some of the unofficial censuses made over the years in Afghanistan:http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm'' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik-afghan (talk • Parsiwan 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

dear hamwatanjan-e aziz,
i want to say i like your post but you have some mistakes, specially when you say tajiks took the language of socalled persians. it s wrong and has no value or senses. sogdianic,bactrianic, arianic ect. were all a dialect of ´´old-persian´´ language. bactrian language was not another language than parsi. and persians were not a tribe they were more an alliance. their origine are in zabul,sistan, ancient turan (a region in east balochistan) and from their nothern neighbours. i am going to create a forum where i want to share my informations and knowledge with my persian tajik people. tajik has not a direct including. everyone can be a tajik. persians in iran or turkey who live beside kurds call themself as tajiks,too. i want to give you more information about tajiks and their anscestors. unfort. my english is UNFORT: bad but i thik it is enough to make you clear who really are tajiks and why we get this name in 1933 at the first from awghans. it would be nice if ou would add me to you msn or sth else.

thanks and shabe yaldaa-e khosh baraahetan biyaarat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parsistani (talk • contribs).

Should this paragraph from the "Demographics" section be removed?
''Though Badakhshan, Takhar, Kunduz, Baghlan, Kapisa, Balkh, Jawzjan, Parwan, Kabul, Ghazni, Ghore, Farah and Herat are named as mainly Tajik inhabited areas in Afghanistan but Tajiks are living in almost all parts and provinces of Afghanistan. Upper and central parts of Laghman, Surkhrood in Nangarhar, Gardez in Paktia, Urgoon in Paktika, Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Provinces are of significant Tajik or Persian speaking population. However, in Logar, Wardak and Ghanzni Provinces in Afghanistan, more or less, one to tow-third of their population is comprised of Tajiks. Source: Afghanistan census 1975.''

User:beh-nam 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Tajiks
Alright, I've been waiting for a list of Tajik personalities for a long long time. I don't see any so far. If Tajiks are being mixed up with Iranians, then why aren't Tajiks present in that list? If not, then why don't they have an extra list? Why is there this ambiguity?


 * We'll have to wait until Tajik replies to this and we hear what he has to say about that (he's the most knowledgeable person on this subject). Until then I guess we could start a list just for fun.Behnam 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics

 * Abu Muslim Khorasani
 * Ahmad Shah Massoud
 * Latif Pedram
 * Abdullah Abdullah
 * Yunus Qanuni
 * Burhanuddin Rabbani

Arts and Science

 * Rumi
 * Avicenna
 * Biruni
 * Rudaki
 * Al Khwarizmi
 * Nelofer Pazira
 * Lida Abdul
 * Khaled Hosseini

Some info from an anonymous user
Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab "Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above: Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world. Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian". This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.

According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab

"Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above:

Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world.

Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian".

This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.

According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

origins of the word Tajik
Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab

"Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above:

Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world.

Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian".

This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.

According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

particularly Medians,eventually demolished by Alexander the Great. And also the Geographical origion of this language is not the residence area of Persians, situated in the South of "Iran" and locally named "FARS". The geographical origion of this language is the "Central Asia". That is why all pioneer poets of this language are from this area, mainly situated in Afghanistan, Uzbakistan and Tajikistan. The original speakers of this language,that speak it more perfectly than "Iranians", are called TAJIK. Therefore, "Persian" or "Farsi" is a wrong name for this language.
 * so-called Persian language is not related to the Persian Tribe who established the Persian Empire by the aid of some other tribes,

I need a favour!
Guys I need a favour, it has nothing to do with wiki but I would appreciate your help if you could help. I have seen a music video called Chor Jawon by Nato on YouTube   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc9WJhmMpD4) The singer is Russian and I do not understand her accent; can you possibly write the lyrics in Farsi or English please? Many thanks. Kiumars

Persian & Tajik Personalities
I wanted to just point out a point, since some users have prepared a list of Tajik personalities.


 * First it is difficult to differentiate between Tajiks and Persians before the 15th century. Since all Persians were known as Tajiks, and all Tajiks were known as Persians (Farsi or Parsi)
 * The term "Tajik" was reserved after the 17th century in the regions of modern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (more generally in the East of Greater Iran) while in the western regions (modern Iran), people continuously used the word Persians
 * We cannot judge the old Poets, Scholars, Scientists & Philosophers who were from Persian origin, whether they were Tajik or Persian. If you call Al-Khwarizmi, Biruni, Rumi, Avicenna and others as Tajiks, so why not to include Al-Ghazali, Omar Khayyam, Ferdousi and others ? It seems to me that you are relying on the fact that Khwarizm and Balkh were/are today located in the regions where Persians are called as Tajiks, but it looks a very weak logic.Ariana310 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Farsiwan
User:Tajik would you please provide a non-western reference/source for the usage of the term "Farsiwan"? Because in the article, you have mentioned it is used for Shia Tajiks, and it indicates that Shia Tajiks are always called as Farsiwans, and that the usage of the term Farsiwan is very popular.

There are some western sources which have reported this point, but it does not seem authentic. The usage of the term Farsiwan is not common. In fact it has a Pashto root (-wan), and it is used mostly by Pashtuns for Tajiks in Herat. Even in Kabul, NOONE USES FARSIWAN FOR SHIA TJIKS, but "Qizilbash". So it is only limited to Shia Tajiks in Herat, and its usage is only common among Pashtuns in Herat.

So please do not generalize the term Farsiwan in the article.Ariana310 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Farsiwan is friven from the word Parsiban which measn persian origin/ or persian speaking. Pashtun nationalists created this word to devide shia and sunni people although shia TAJIKS belong to the sunni TAJIKS.


 * Farsiwan is/ has been Fars(i)-Zaban who has a Farsi tongue, better said who speaks Persian. Babakexorramdin 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Pashtuns get featured article status???
No way! Come on, let's show them!!! IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE NOW!-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Latif Pedram on the Tajiks front page?
I believe tht Latif Pedram should not be in the Tajik's front page. I can name scores of more popular Tajik notables, from historical figures to cultural icons that woukld suitably fit this page rather than Latif Pedram, who won a mere 1.4% of the vote during the 2004 presidential elections. Scythian1 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His picture is placed in the Recent Developements' section and it is relevant to that section. --Behnam 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not relevant. In fact, there is absolutely no substantial development/current events which pertain to Pedram or what he advocates in the recent months or even in the recent years. Moreover, the fact that he only received 1.4% of the vote during the 2004 (EMPHASIS ON 2004 - this is 3 years ago thus, NOT recent) Afghan presidential elections, vitaties any reason why he would even be in the "recent developments" section. Even assuming he has partaken in some kind of political activity, it would palpably be seen as sporadiac and isolated since there is virtually nothing in the news about this individual. Accordingly, his picture should therefore be removed promptly to ensure this section is free from unneutral points of views. Scythian1 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That section mentions Tajik nationalism as a recent development. And Latif Pedram has some Tajik nationalist ideaologies for instance the name change to Khorasan etc). So his picture is very relevant to that section. There is nothing un-neutral about it. --Behnam 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent development and "relevant" sentiment are two distinct and seperate notions. Just because someone espouses nationalist views, doesn't mean one should construe that to mean it as a "recent development." As earlier noted, there is absolutely nothing in the recent news about Pedram to justify his picture in this section or even in this page. If anything, the picture of Emomali Rahmon (which was strangely taken down on this page) is far more appropriate since he RECENTLY (emphasis on RECENT) dropped the "ov" in his last name and assumingly persuaded others to do the same. Therefore, as earlier noted, Pedram's picture should be removed. Scythian1 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just realized that almost all of the pictures in the article are from the Tajiks of Afghanistan and non from those of Tajikistan. So having the picture of Imamali Rahman(ov) in this page, I think, would be necessary. And moreover, there is nothing so important whether to keep Pedram's picture. As Scythian said, there are many other Tajiks who deserve to have their pictures in the article. -Ariana310 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedram's "activitism" is anything but "active" to warrant his picture in the "recent development" section. If Pedram does initiate substantial and continuous political activity, it may then and only then, but proper to restore his picture. Accordingly, as per majority consensus, Pedram's picture has rightfully been replaced with Rahmon's who has taken bold steps to order others to remove the "ov" from their last names - which can easily been seen as a real gutsy move since it raised a lot of eyebrows in Russia where Tajikistan has an economic interest in. Scythian1 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Pedram is an active political activist at the moment. Excluding the Mujahideen leaders, Pedram is the most active among the contemporary Political Parties of Afghanistan. Since, the "recent development" section had nothing to do with it, we can avoid Pedram's picture. In the future, when the article will improve, we can put his picture under "Tajik Nationalism Movements". -Ariana310 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedram is not active under commonly known political standards - Unless you can cite credible unbias sources/articles which indicate that his "activity" is continuous, recent, and substantial. Oh, speaking of improving the article, this section certainly needs more flavor. I recommend perhaps making a culture section where one can discuss food, clothing and other cultural mannerisms. Scythian1 01:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Hammasa_np6.jpg
As this image is being used on this article, editors may want to contest or replace it before it's deleted. → AA (talk) — 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye is the troll OSLONOR
TAKE CARE GUYS. TOMBSEYE IS THE PASHTUN OSLONOR!!! HE OFTEN USE TERMS LIKE IRANO-AFGHAN RACE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST CAUSE AFGHANS ARE TO % TURKIC AND HE HAVE EVEN AN AFGHAN FORUM Afghan Forum

Famous Tajiks
Every one of the eight featured famous Tajiks is a male. It would be nice having at least one third females in for a better balance. Wasn't a recent Miss England a Tajik? JdeJ 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tajiks of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
absolutely BS stinky Pashtun. Tajiks of tajikistan are related to Turks just by 3%. Did you ever analized a dna-record?? To 97% they are indo-europeans. They also have not an persian culture because in the ancient the people of modern tajikistan spoke the same language..just their langauge differed accentually from the western iranian language. The had also the same culture and identity. Like dariuosh codmannus said, bactrians, sogdians, persians ect. are all one greater tribe just cut by geography. The indians and israelis scholars make differences between tajiks. while teh tajiks of tajikistan are count to indo-aryans the tajiks of afghanistan (or khorasani tajiks) are know as iranians.

Ps: Mongols gen-marker are not found till yet in central Asia because they never gave theri y-chromosome to other or left children there when mongols moved back to their originally homeland. --88.68.213.164 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1.7 million Tajiks in Iran?
This is obvious error, Tajiks in Pakistan are approx. 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 maxium. There are 2.6 million registered Afghan refugees in Pakistan and an estimated 3 million unregistered of whom about 80% are ethnic Pashtuns and the 15% are mixed of Tajiks, Baloch, Aimaqs, Uzbeks, Nuristanis, Pashais. Also, there are no 1.7 million Tajiks in Iran, the maximum number of refugees there are about 920,000, which includes all ethnic groups of Afghanistan not just Tajiks.--ZmaGhurnStaKona 07:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Tajiks of Iran are the ones found in the North East of the country, as far the Tajiks in Pakistan, they seem to be under-reported possibly being confused for Pashtuns, Shina speaking or Khowar speaking. Their numbers should be much more than what is reported! Im not sure if this is being deliberately done or just a technical problem in Pakstans census collection.

I agree, The Tajik population of Pakistan is way too low. Like you said, it has to do with the fact that most Tajik's (except the one's from Afghanistan and Tajikistan), identify themselves by the region they belong to in Pakistan.

"Tajiki" is a Persian language
"Tajiki" is a Persian language. It is written in Cyrillic, Roman or Persian characters, depending upon the author. It is a distinct language from Western Farsi, as spoken in Teheran, although it is a related language, both being in the Persian language subgroup. See the article Persian language and the Ethnologue site. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajiki is a Dialect not a language.--Anoshirawan 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)


 * "Tajiki" is a dialect of Persian, but Shughni and Wakhi (the languages of Chinese Tajiks) are not. Both are East-Iranian language, and have affinities to Pashto. The overwhelming majority of Tajiks speak Persian.
 * Linguists generally consider the differences between Tajiki, Eastern Farsi and Western Farsi to be sufficient to be different languages, each with its own set of dialects, see Clifton, John M. (ed.) (2005) Studies in languages of Tajikistan North Eurasia Group, SIL International, St Petersburg, Russia, OCLC 122939499. But the classification as dialect or language is not important, what is important is that there are substantial differences between them, and that each one itself has notable and documented variations within it. See, for example, Payvand forum for Persian, Dari and Tajiki speakers. --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically closely related to such major languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within Uzbekistan, Samarqand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tajik was considered by a number of writers and researchers to be a variety of Persian. The language that this book describes is the modern Tajik language which is referred to in the Soviet linguistic literature typically as zaboni khozirai tojik. The morphological segmentability of Tajik words is markedly high compared to words in the Indo-Iranian predecessors of Tajik, which makes Tajik morphologically more agglutinative than inflectional. Outstanding features of Tajik include the modal opposition between the indicative mood and the mood of indirect evidence, i.e. the inferential mood, that pervades the verbal system, and the utilization of both post-nominal and pre-nominal relative clauses." from "LINGUIST List 16.604: Language Description: Tajik" quoted by --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are approx 3,345,000 Tajaki speakers in Tajikistan and about 50,000 Western Farsi speakers, out of some 7 million people. There are very few Eastern Farsi (Dari (Afghanistan)) speakers, see Clifton above. That sounds like a slim majority, if any, to me.  The next largest group is native Russian speakers at 237,000.  If Shughni (an Iranian language admittedly not in the Persian language group) speakers in Tajikistan are included as Tajiks that gives an additional 40,000. --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way: the accuracy of Ethnologue is strongly disputed. It's better not to use their site as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.44 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that on some points the accuracy of Ethnologue is disputed. However, overall it is generally considered a good source.  The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recognizes SIL International, Ethnologue's parent organization, as the proper implementer of the three letter ISO 639-3 standards. "ISO 639-3 is a code that aims to define three-letter identifiers for all known human languages. At the core of ISO 639-3 are the individual languages already accounted for in ISO 639-2. The large number of living languages in the initial inventory of ISO 639-3 beyond those already included in ISO 639-2 was derived primarily from Ethnologue (15th edition)." "ISO 639-3 Registration Authority - SIL International".  If you dispute a particular point from Ethnologue, please provide citation to a scholarly (not popular press) source.  --Bejnar (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Iranian speaker!?
Who keeps referring to Tajiks as Iranian speakers? That makes no sense. Stop that please. There are lots of Iranian languages like Pashto, being a Pashto-speaker does not make someone Tajik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy of current colloquial name when item linked
Anoshirawan insists, edits of 29 Dec. 2007 etc., on adding "and Afghanistan" to the sentence: "The Tajiks trace their more immediate ancestry to the East Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, which means that the historical ancestors of the Tajiks did not speak Persian - the south-western Iranian language, today known as 'Farsi' in Iran and Afghanistan." The name of the language in Afghanistan is officially "Dari", although it is true that it is often called "Farsi" as well, but such local usage is irrelevant to this article and to this sentence. In truth, the fact that today the language that they did not speak is called "Farsi" is irrelevant. I suggest that the sentence be edited to read: "The Tajiks trace their more immediate ancestry to the East Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, which means that the historical ancestors of the Tajiks did not speak a southwestern Iranian language, such as Persian. What do you think? --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only people who use the term "Dari" in Afghanistan are Pashtuns.--Anoshirawan 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)
 * What relevance does that usage, even if true, have to the compromise suggested above that avoids the issue? Which issue is not relevant to what language the Tajiks originally spoke. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)