| Revision as of 23:08, 22 April 2007 view sourceAtashparast (talk | contribs)144 edits →Your removal of the LoC reference← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 May 2010 view source Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators63,405 editsm Cleaning up redirect | ||
| (437 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{archive box|box-width=14em|image-width=20px| | |||
| * ]}} | |||
| == Request for Peer Review == | |||
| Hi there. Since you're on the ], I thought I should let you know, that've requested a peer review for the article on ] ]. I'll appreciate your feedback, thanks.] 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pictures == | |||
| Hey. The pictures are really nice. Maybe you should add two pictures to the article, one of the smiling girl and one of the old man reading. Those two are really beautiful! | |||
| BTW: you should talk to ] about the colors of the ethno-linguistic maps. He is the one who is creating them. | |||
| Have a nice day. | |||
| ] 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Regarding Farsiwan: ] is an authoritative scholarly source. I think that the quote should stay, because it was more weight than other sources. ] 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Tajik article == | |||
| I already commented that the statement regarding the origin of "Tajik', which was removed, was a purely speculative point of view which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. No source was given on the dubious statement either... ] 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cinema== | |||
| Hi there! | |||
| Would you please add some information about Pashto cinema of 2000s to ]? Any notable film or director? or some info on Pashto film industry in today's Afghanistan? I tried to find some pashto films but those were made by western directors. It is very kind of you if you could help me with that. Thanks in advance. ] 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your reply. Take care. ] 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Latif Pedram == | |||
| Done. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tajiks on wikicommons== | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Why did you delete the link? Ofcource it's better to have more images in that category, but it can not be a reason to delete the link. ] 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==About your map on the "languages of Afghanistan"== | |||
| which you have used as the source, shows a Baloch majority in ], but you have colored it as a Pashtun region. Please correct it. ] 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello. Why is the family picture misleading? I've seen MANY Pashtuns (both Afghans and those from Peshawar) who look just like that family right down to their clothing. ] for example shows a range of physical types so why not for the Pashtuns as well who are basically the same as Tajiks? ] 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| Ummeed laram che kha ba ai? Will you please visit ] article for any suggestion and correction regarding grammer aswell. Dera Manana and Take care. ] 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pashtun786 == | |||
| I'll keep an eye on him. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked Rizza18 for vandalism, as for the others, I think you should try going to ]. List them ] (read the instructions in the box), along with some of NisarKand's IP addresses (). Note that they all start with "202.134.132". The code letter fo the checkuser case will be "F". <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 07:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==comments== | |||
| Salam. Can you have a look at ]'s Talk Page? He has been blocked for a month and accused for ''not having constructive contribution in wikipedia'' which seems completely irrational. You may have your comments there. | |||
| Plus, I reverted your addition of map. I presented the points in the talk page. I hope you will not mind for reverting it without letting you know first. ] 10:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Map== | |||
| Please note that aims.org.af does not give the figures for all districts of a province. In some provinces, it has given the figures of only few districts. Please correct Ghazni province (for Tajiks), Ghor (for Aimaks/Hazaras), Takhar (for Tajiks) and Logar (for Pashtuns). ] 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I commented again about Wardak and Ghor provinces in the discussion. I was wondering if you noticed it.] 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, according to that map, Wardak is lied under the Persian language. However, Wardak has about 80% Pashtun population, and Persian is not so much used there. Just take a look at the AIMS reports. Among the southern Pashtun provinces, it is only ] who has the highest number of Tajiks. Especially in Jalalabad, Dari/Farsi is widely used. Even in governmental departments, most of the official papers are written in Dari. The only reason is that Jalalabad always remained under Kabul's influences. And the city of Jalalabad itself was built of Jalaluddin Akbar, the grandson of ]. And in that map, Jalalabad is highlighted for Persian as well. | |||
| :The map is based on 1985 statistics. It also highlights ] for Persian. While today, Persian is almost dead in that province because of the rigorous politics of Afghan government. There were many Tajik tribes in Paktiya who used to speak Dari. But since there was no Persian school in that province, they were obliged to quit Dari. Now all those tribes speak Pashto. | |||
| :So at the moment, Wardak, Paktya and Logar are completely under Pashtu influence, and Persian is no more the dominant language. Remember you have highlighted the provinces for the major language. And today, Pashtu is the major language in those 3 provinces, despite the fact that there is a little bit presence of Persian.] 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Plus, I do not also agree with that map because of the ] province. It is highlighted for Uzbeki language. Although the proportion of Uzbek people might be higher than that of Tajik people, but Persian '''is''' the dominant language.] 07:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, thanks for you too. For your hardworking. Don't forget about the Ghor province, as I gave you the sources in the Talk page for Aimaks.] 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, in that map, they have put Aimaqs with Tajiks. As you wish then. Some sources add Aimaqs with Tajiks, while others with Hazaras, for the fact that they resemble to both Tajiks and Hazaras. But I think it would be better, to show Aimaqs independently. To neither put it under Tajiks and nor under Hazaras, but to show itself.] 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why Pedram? == | |||
| Greetings! Why is Pedram on the Tajiks home page when he received only 1.4% of the total vote during Afghanistan's presidential elections? Furthermore, most people from the region have heardly heard of Latif Pedram. Moreover, this person, if assuming it is true, is a known atheist; hardly representative of the devout Sunni Muslim Tajiks. Perhaps adding Rabbani or Masood would be understable since they are far more commonly known. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == what? == | |||
| can you explain this to me? (you crossed my comments, I hope you will undue it quickly)--] 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:Afghan Politicians== | |||
| Hi. Well, I think "Afghan Politicians" is better. Here, the word "Afghan" is not an ethnic name, but a ''Nationality''. In all over the world, the nationals of Afghanistan are known as "Afghan". For changing a category, you have to create another category with that new name. And then you have to go in each article and change the category name in the articles. That takes a very long time! But I suggest to leave it for instance.] 07:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == al-Khwarizmi == | |||
| Do not make such claims without providing reliable sources to back your statements up. There are already three highly reliable sources which state him to be Persian. —'']'' 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Unacceptable. His ethnicity is disputed too much not to have this backed by several reliable sources. If this issue was really that important, the current sources have mentioned him as a Tajik, not as a Persian. —'']'' 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : P.S. I'm also warning you not to violate ]. —'']'' 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I understand the issue, however you fail to understand ]. If the sources call all call him Persian, so should the Misplaced Pages article. —'']'' 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Being Tajik is not exactly equivalent to being Persian and therefore requires a reliable source to be provided (the source you have is not.) Note that I'm personally not disputing whether or not he was Tajik (although ] does) but merely enforcing Misplaced Pages's policy of reporting on what reliable sources have published and not on the ''truth''. —'']'' 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. Could you please use the preview feature when posting to my talk page in the future. Receiving several notices for a single message is quite annoying. —'']'' 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Wikipeda can never be a reliable source for itself. Note that I have done a good bit of research on al-Khwarizmi (as in making several trips to libraries and reading up on a lot of scholarly sources.) You will not find any source calling him Tajik. And if historians of mathematics do not wish to explicitly label him as such, neither should the article on Misplaced Pages. —'']'' 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Admins do not have any special role in making editorial decisions, but you are of course free to chekc with them. Note that I have already reported you for violating 3RR (]), so you might wish to self-revert to avoid being blocked. —'']'' 10:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Sorry, but I don't understand why you can't revert your last edit? —'']'' 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, I see: | |||
| (cur) (last) 09:51, 6 April 2007 Beh-nam (Talk | contribs | block) m (rv, please see your talk page) | |||
| (cur) (last) 09:42, 6 April 2007 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by Beh-nam (talk) to last version by Ali doostzadeh) | |||
| (cur) (last) 04:22, 6 April 2007 Beh-nam (Talk | contribs | block) m | |||
| (cur) (last) 02:56, 6 April 2007 Beh-nam (Talk | contribs | block) (rv, i couldn't write my entire explanation, not enough space, here's the rest, today Persian-speakers and/or ethnic Persians in Uzbekistan are also referred to as Tajik, and i meant around that time) | |||
| (cur) (last) 02:50, 6 April 2007 Ali doostzadeh (Talk | contribs | block) (not really.. the term tajik gained prominence later on.) | |||
| (cur) (last) 01:40, 6 April 2007 Beh-nam (Talk | contribs | block) (User:Ruud Koot, see the article on Persians and Tajiks, and here's the explanation again: ethnic Persians and/or Persian speakersliving in Khwarizm were commonly referred to as "Tajik" during that tim) | |||
| ::—'']'' 11:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm blocking you for 24 hours. You made three reverts ''before'' even attempting to open a discussion (, , ), then a fourth revert just outside the 24-hours range (). Furthermore, this was a renewal of the exact same revert war you had already engaged in back in December, so you must have known your edits wouldn't meet with consensus. I waited to give you time to revert yourself as Ruud suggested, and I can frankly not see what difficulties you have with the situation as you now claim. First you said you didn't revert since opening the discussion , but that's plainly false (both of you began the discussion simultaneously at 09:44 and you reverted once more at 09:51 ); then you claimed Ruud already reverted your latest edit (), which is also false, and I also can't see how a lag in database updating you have led you to this misapprehension. ] ] 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : '''The first one, at 4:48 you have listed was NOT an RV.''' I wasn't telling Ruud that I did not make 3 reverts, I was telling him that I did not break 3RR. I did not break 3RR, count the number of reverts. There is only '''three'''. Please count them here . Also I explained each one of my RV's in detail, just see the history page. When that did not work I then started a discussion with Ruud. Here . And the reason I did not RV it is because the times are showing wrong like I explained to Ruud, if we wait a little it will be updated and back to Ruud's version so it is pointless for me to have reverted it. Regardless I did not break the 3RR rule, so please lift the block. Thanks. --] 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The tag for unblock is not showing my reason, so here it is:I did not break the 3RR rule. I made 3 RVs, not a 4th. ] listed these 4: , , , . But the one at '''4:48 was''' '''NOT''' a RV. So I did not break the 3RR rule and I should not have been blocked. | |||
| :Your first edit yesterday was a revert to an earlier version from December (), which you had been edit-warring about back then in the exact same fashion (). Therefore it counts. As for your reasons for not reverting yourself, I'm still puzzled. If you think there was another revert by Ruud and it's not showing up for you in the history, then how do you know he made it? He didn't, in fact. ] ] 12:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes I did make that edit on December 8, but how does that count into the past 24 hours? That is too long ago to count. No where in the rules for 3RR does it mention anything longer than 24 hours, nevermind '''6 months ago'''. I knew Ruud made that revert because I have this article on my watchlist and saw his revert there, he's reason was "'''see re'''. You can even ask him. Also the reason I did not was because I thought it might have violated 3RR. And there is infact a glitch today, I've noticed it other articles too. -- ] 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have no idea what it was that you thought you saw about an edit of Ruud's, but as of this moment, and using server-cach purge and all, there's no further edit on that page after yours and no edit by Ruud with a summary of "see re" anywhere in sight. | |||
| ::: As for why the old version "counts", it obviously doesn't count as one of the reverts within the 24 hours, but it counts as determining that the first of those was a revert. ] ] 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well unless I am imaging things, there was a final revert by Ruud. Regardless, with all due respect, why didn't you wait until I had finished asking Ruud about his final RV? If he told me no he did not make a final one, I would have then made the RV myself. Also, I don't think its fair that I'm expected to remember an edit from '''6 months ago'''. So I don't think that the first one was a revert. '''6 months''' is too long. And also the version of that article is different from the one I changed it to. Just do compare. -- ] 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I asked Ruud this ''"Can you please confirm that you only count 3 on the history page in the past 24 hours by me? Thanks."'' And right after that I was banned. Why wasn't I allowed to recieve Ruud's response first that he considered my edit from '''6 months''' ago an revert? Then I would have RVed it myself. --] 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: And is the one from '''6 months ago''' compared to the first edit from today. So it is not an RV because it is not reverting to the same version since the article has changed drastically. So I did not break the 3RR rule and should not have been banned. --] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I did not break 3RR, I only made 3RVs, but the Admins that blocked me consider it 4RVs because they are counting one from 6 months ago|decline=Regardless of any technicalities, you were edit warring, which is unacceptable. Given your previous blocks, you've yet to learn your lesson. I endorse this block. — ] ] 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| : Ok, though 1 of my previous blocks was also unjustified. I was reverting FAKE citations. I think that should taken out of my block log. Can that be done? --] 06:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: == | |||
| Hmmmmm ... I do not know. What do you think? ] 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==picture== | |||
| The new picture does not give the complete license either. I gives only for Ibn Sina and Ahmad Shah Massoud. You can add these license/source informations in the first picture which contained Biruni. Nonetheless, you have tagged it with Fair Use, and I do not think it would be a license violation.] 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Because creating another section for Tajik persoanlities, would have much problem. We can only put the personalities since 18th century, because before that it is impossible to distinguish a Persian and a Tajik personality.] 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The picture is not important, the personality is important ! Nonetheless, Biruni's picture was quite well. If it was Black & White, there's no problem. Even though, the new picture of Ismail Samani in a ''coloured picture'' does not correspond exactly as his real appearance. The painter/author drew the picture based on his own preferences and some informations that he had read in some books.] 09:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re: T.B.== | |||
| Okay, I will contribute in that article. There is one big mistake in it: the "Setami Milli" notion. In fact, the political party which he was leading was "SAZA" (saazman-e enqelabi-e zahmat-kashaan-e afghanistan). In fact, NO political party under the name of "Setami Milli" existed or NO political party under this name was registered. As a matter of fact, this name was attributed by the Khalq Democratic Party to him and especially by Hafizullah Amin. Here's a very good article by Dastageer Panjshiri . I will correct this.] 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: == | |||
| I have most of these articles on my watch list (next to countless others, such as ] or ], articles that are always under POV attack). But right now, I am not allowed to do any reverts. You have to take care of that ... Sorry ... ] 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand == | |||
| I've fixed it; apparently {{tl|Newcheckusercase}} was deleted, you can ask ] why if you want. Anyways please fill-in the rest: ]. Once, you've done that, add <nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand}}</nowiki> to the top of ]. Thanks, <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Persien: bis zum Einbruch des Islam'' == | |||
| Could you give me the quote from ''Persien: bis zum Einbruch des Islam'' where Frye claims Khwarizmi is Tajik? (I can read German, so you don't have to translate.) I can look it up in the university library tomorrow, but this make thing easier. —'']'' 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : As I said before this is insufficient: if no source bothers to call him a Tajik explicitly, so shouldn't the Misplaced Pages article. Please see ] as well. —'']'' 09:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Historians of mathematics usually aren't that obsessed with the ethnicity of the people they study as some Wikipedians seem to be (probably because the mathematics they developed is much more interesting), so I'll doubt you'll have any success, but good luck anyway. —'']'' 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I searched ] (which indexes a significant portion of the journals on the history of mathematics and science) for khwarizmi and tajik, which turned up nothing. Note that I'm so insistent on providing an explicit statement, because it as easy to make the inference that Khwarizmi came from Central Asia and therefore was Tajik as it is to say that he lived under the Arab caliphate and therefore was an Arab (similar constructions have been made to claim he was Turkish) which led to a great deal of unproductive edit warring in the past. —'']'' 10:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Check User == | |||
| For your check user case, could you please not move or copy the case from delisted to oustanding? It is very confusing for the clerks, as well. Also, you put the clerk case in the wrong spot. Thanks. '''<font color="teal" face="georgia">]</font>''' 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's all sorted out now. --] (]) 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ethnic maps== | |||
| Salam. Today when I checked the Afghanistan article, your two ethno-linguistic maps were deleted. Check last version just before my edits. I uploaded ] new ethnic map, which has a free license in public domain, and seems very accurate. | |||
| However, after adding the image, I checked the ] article. And there, your both maps were in display while they were shown as deleted in Afghanistan's article. I hided the image box of the linguistic map in Afghanistan's article. So I just let you know to check it and try to fix it if you can. However, about the ethnic map, I still suggest to keep this new ethnic map because it is more accurate.] 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| Can you add some sources , I am sure there are many sources to support those statements, but I am not too familiar with Tajiks' situation in Uzbekistan. --] 05:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Qizilbash == | |||
| Hi Beh-nam. Sorry for the late reply, but I am not at home right now, and I do not have instant access to the internet except for a few short minutes. I just saw your edit in the Qizilbash article, and wanted to tell you that it is wrong. The Qizilbash were not "Shia tribes", they were a coaltion of many different extremist, anti-Ottoman, and un-orthodox Shia sects. Some of them were more conservative, but the large majority was extremly un-orthodox, even going as far as calling Shah Ismail "son of God". Descendants of the early Qizilbash live in modern Turkey (forming some 20% of the population), are known as ]ts, and are not regarded Muslims by mainstream Islamic schools (both Shia and Sunni). Like the Qizilbash, they drink alcohol, do not accept the ], do not preform the ], and do not consider the Quran to be the "eternal word of God". The reason why Iran is orthodox Ithna Ashari today is due to the removal of Qizilbash chiefs by Shah Abbas and the ''import'' of orthodox Arab Shia ulema from Iraq. Modern Iranian Shiism is totally different from the ] Shiism of the Qizilbash or modern Alevites. So I suggest you revert your latest edit. Take care. ] 08:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your removal of the LoC reference== | |||
| This is what the ] Country Study on Afghanistan says about Qizilbash: | |||
| ::The Qizilbash of Mediterranean sub-stock speak Dari, are Imami Shi'a, and scattered throughout Afghanistan, primarily in urban centers. There are perhaps 50,000 Qizilbash living in Afghanistan although it is difficult to say for some claim to be Sunni Tajik since Shia Islam permits the practice of taqiya or dissimulation to avoid religious discrimination. The Qizilbash form one of the more literate groups in Afghanistan; they hold important administrative and professional positions. | |||
| ::The Qizilbash are traditionally considered to be the descendants of Persian Shia mercenaries and administrators left behind by the Safavid Emperor Nadir Shah Afshar (1736-47) to govern the Afghan provinces. Under Ahmad Shah Durrani, who served in Nadir Shah's bodyguard, and his successors, the Qizilbash acquired power and influence at court out of proportion to their numbers. This created resentment among the dominant Pushtun which hardened over the years, especially after the Qizilbash openly allied themselves with the British during the First Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842). Amir Abdur Rahman accused the Qizilbash of being partisan to the enemy during his campaigns against the Shi'a Hazara in 1891-1893, declared them enemies of the state, confiscated their property and persecuted them. | |||
| Please don't remove the reference, and you can check the above link with the direct link at the official LoC website. ] 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :According to the LoC, they are an ethnic group: ''The Qizilbash form one of the more literate groups in Afghanistan; they hold important administrative and professional positions.'' If they were not an ethnic group, they would be listed under Tajiks, rather than on their own. ] 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, the Qizilbash article doesn't provide any sources for Qizilbash descendants being considered as Tajiks today. ] 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::But the article does not provide any sources for the idea that Qizilbash are today Tajiks, Persians, or Kurdish. The LoC article identifies them as a "group" and does not connect them with other groups. It only says: ''There are perhaps 50,000 Qizilbash living in Afghanistan although it is difficult to say for some claim to be Sunni Tajik since Shia Islam permits the practice of taqiya or dissimulation to avoid religious discrimination.'' So, apparently not all Qizilbash claim to be Tajik. The article makes it clear they are considered a distinct group. ] 22:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::See this link from the US military which also identifies Qizilbash as an ethnic group: , and also this one from an academic source: . ] 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, my suggestion would be to clarify the issue in the article, or to create a separate article since the primary one is rather long, and eventually add sources from Iranica or other resources. Because honestly, the current Qizilbash article makes it seem like they are a group from the past, rather than a group also existing in the present. The introduction of the article should reflect that they are an active group in Afghanistan. Do you know what I mean? ] 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 May 2010
Redirect to: