There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created by Pan-Turkists-- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:
Any contributions would greatly appreciate – please add your comments, whether you agree with the deletion, or otherwise to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turco-Persian as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turko-Persian Tradition. Bā Sepās Surena 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-17T03:01:00.000Z","author":"Surena","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Surena-2007-01-17T03:01:00.000Z-Two_Articles_in_need_of_your_attention","replies":[]}}-->
Greetings. I just wrote the page Greek to me. I am comparing similar expressions in other languages. I was wondering if you would be able to add the expression in any languages with which you are comfortable. Btw, I just found your page/profile by running a search for users who have a level 4/level 5 ability in non-English languages. Thanks much! samwaltz 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-11T04:25:00.000Z","author":"Samwaltz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Samwaltz-2007-04-11T04:25:00.000Z-Greek_to_me","replies":[]}}-->
Please see Talk:Haji Piyada. Thanks. --Vssun (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-24T11:00:00.000Z","author":"Vssun","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vssun-2010-12-24T11:00:00.000Z-Noh_Gonbad","replies":["c-Vssun-2010-12-29T14:33:00.000Z-Vssun-2010-12-24T11:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
Herat´s name changing --188.107.12.104 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.196.21 (talk) [reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-01T02:05:00.000Z","author":"188.107.12.104","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-188.107.12.104-2011-01-01T02:05:00.000Z-Shocking_News:_AfghanMellati\u00b4s_Name_Change_of_Herat","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-03T19:44:00.000Z-188.107.12.104-2011-01-01T02:05:00.000Z"]}}-->
I kept your edit, I just changed "today's Tajiks" to "Tajik". You got to keep in mind that at time, Tajik and Persian meant the same thing, and using today's definitions for a historical character is problematic. It's like labeling a medieval German born in today's Austria, as Austrian. But nonetheless, I kept the Tajik designation for clarity , even though none of the cited sources use it. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-03T21:11:00.000Z","author":"Kurdo777","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kurdo777-2011-01-03T21:11:00.000Z-Rumi","replies":["c-Kurdo777-2011-01-03T21:26:00.000Z-Kurdo777-2011-01-03T21:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
Dusti Azizi, Artacoana; Your edit doesn't match WP:Synthesis. There is no source that says Rumi was a Tajik. Tajiks and Persians are same, and I don't understand why you insist on this matter which is not important. Do you have a special reason for this? I am going to remove it from the article, but if you still believe it's necessary to include the word Tajik, let me know your reasons here. Baa Sepaas. --Aliwiki (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-03T21:29:00.000Z","author":"\u0639\u0644\u06cc \u0648\u06cc\u06a9\u06cc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-\u0639\u0644\u06cc_\u0648\u06cc\u06a9\u06cc-2011-01-03T21:29:00.000Z-Rumi","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-04T00:07:00.000Z-\u0639\u0644\u06cc_\u0648\u06cc\u06a9\u06cc-2011-01-03T21:29:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Aliwiki"}}-->
Good afternoon! I read your input and I agree with the user Kurdo777. There are two problems with using Tajik in the designation. It is absolutely and in no way a contention on his origin but you have to keep in mind that Tajik at the time DID not exist. It is only recent era that after the break up of the Persian empire, and the recent break up of the Soviet Union that the term Tajik has been known. The other problem is your source really does not make a mention of Avicenna. Bring a reliable source that you believe specifically refers to him as Tajik and I will put it back up. For now however as per Wikipedia rules, regarding references, no mention of Avicenna is made and also timewise, there was no coherent defition of "Tajik" at the time of his birth as it was all part of the Persian empire after the arab invasion. So in a way you can not even say he was tajik, as he could have been a number of possible Persian Sub-ethnic groups. At any rate, I really understand where you are coming from and I applaud your attempt at clarifying this but as per policy and the fact that your source does not deal with Avicenna and also to prevent the article to turn into a cultural battle. I am going to revert "Persian (Tajik)" to simply presian and remove the link from Encyclopedia which is a wonderful description of the Tajik Persians and their wonderful contributions but really has nothing to do with Avicenna. Cheers and I look forward to reading more of your wonderful additions. :) Dr. Persi (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T02:30:00.000Z","author":"Dr. Persi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dr._Persi-2011-01-08T02:30:00.000Z-Rumi","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-08T03:02:00.000Z-Dr._Persi-2011-01-08T02:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avicenna. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T04:36:00.000Z","author":"KrakatoaKatie","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KrakatoaKatie-2011-01-08T04:36:00.000Z-January_2011","replies":["c-KrakatoaKatie-2011-01-08T04:39:00.000Z-KrakatoaKatie-2011-01-08T04:36:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Krakatoa"}}-->
Hi Artacoana, I've been studying your contribs after noticing some of your edits and I think that you make many good points and edits, especially in your inclusion of using the descriptor of "Greater Iran." And I am concerned that your approach to the racial/ethnic origin of historical personages of Iranian descent may be in contradiction to common nomenclature and accepted usage. Accusations of a racial group being stealers and chauvinists not only breaks wiki civility guidelines, it also shows a distinct POV without consideration to the work of others editors. I might recommend that you bring issues that you may have onto the talk page and allow editors to discuss and reflect on your points, instead of your promotion of your point through blanket edits. Let me know if I can help. GoetheFromm (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T08:28:00.000Z","author":"GoetheFromm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GoetheFromm-2011-01-08T08:28:00.000Z-On_Racial\/Ethnic_Origins_of_historical_personages","replies":[]}}-->
Well, if you don't call this chauvinism, then tell me what is it then? --Artacoana (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T12:53:00.000Z","author":"Artacoana","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Artacoana-2011-01-08T12:53:00.000Z-On_Racial\/Ethnic_Origins_of_historical_personages","replies":[]}}-->
Please do not the ethnicity Tajik to a historical biography unless you have a reliable source which explicitly states the person was a Tajik. What you did here and here is a form of WP:SYN. This is not allowed and repeatedly adding these kind of claims is a good way to get yourself banned. —Ruud 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-08T22:18:00.000Z","author":"Ruud Koot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ruud_Koot-2011-01-08T22:18:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-08T23:24:00.000Z-Ruud_Koot-2011-01-08T22:18:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ruud"}}-->
WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T00:00:00.000Z","author":"Artacoana","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Artacoana-2011-01-09T00:00:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-08T23:59:00.000Z-Artacoana-2011-01-09T00:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
He (Artacoana) has added the following statement "his father was from Balkh, Afghanistan and his mother from Bukhara" using his source which is basically Encylopedia Iranica. I read the source, is it just me or I cant find EVEN ONE WORD about Avicenna or his parentage? Dr. Persi (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T03:00:00.000Z","author":"Dr. Persi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dr._Persi-2011-01-09T03:00:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-09T03:13:00.000Z-Dr._Persi-2011-01-09T03:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
"There is no reason why the names of Avicenna’s mother [...] should have survived unaltered, or at all, for more than 150 years until Bayhaqī’s time. Such information, even if it had survived orally in the popular tradition, lends itself easily to falsification."
--Artacoana (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T05:06:00.000Z","author":"Artacoana","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Artacoana-2011-01-09T05:06:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Ruud_Koot-2011-01-09T05:43:00.000Z-Artacoana-2011-01-09T05:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
Here is my take on the issue. What we need to do is as add Tajiks into the Persian people article rather than try to make anachronistic changes to other article. Of course putting Persian(Tajik) is the second option, but I do not think the first optinion is much better (change the Persian people article). I know there are some ignorant Iranians who think Persian only means people from Iran. However, Artacoana should know majority of people are not as ignorant (specially scholars). So what we need to do doost-geraami is to change the definition of Persian people in Wikipedia rather than let some Iranians claim all the credit for the term Persian. Iranica and Encyclaopedia of Islam also state his native language as Persian. B) D. Gutas, "Avicenna", in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Version 2006, (LINK); excerpt: "That he should have written poems in Persian (Farsi), his native and everyday language, is probable" Native language and ethnicity are the same thing in that era since the word "native" denotes ethnicity. C) Ibn Sina ("Avicenna") Encyclopedia of Islam. 2nd edition. Edited by P. Berman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Henrichs. Brill 2009. Accessed through Brill online: www.encislam.brill.nl (2009) Quote: "He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian." It is true Avicenna was born in Bukhara under the Samanid era and then after the collapse of the Samanids, he fled the Ghaznavid domain and went under the Buyids. However, this large domain was not called Afghanistan then. It was called Iran.
In gathering (approximately 940 C.E.) of the Samanid rule for a remembrance of Abu Ja'far Banuwiyah, Rudaki Samarqandi one of the first Persian poets praises this Saffarid ruler. Abu Ja'far is praised as the king of Iran, ruler of Azadegan (another term for Iranians) and descendant of Sassanids: “ شادی بوجعفر احمد بن محمد آن مه آزادگان مفخر ایران .. خلق همه از خاک و آب و آتش و بادند وین ملک از گوهر آفتاب ساسان .. آن ملک نیمروز و خسروپیروز دولت او یوز و دشمن آهوی نالان Translation: The happiness brought by Abu Ja'afar Ahmad ibn Muhammad, The ruler of the Azadegan and the pride of Iran .. The creatures are created from dust and water, fire and wind And this king is from the illuminous jewel of Sassan .. That king of the age and the victorious Khusraw His fortune like a leopard, his enemies like fleeing deers.
However, on the term "Tajik" itself, it should be mentioned that in Afghanistan, the other term is "Farsi-Zuban" and "Farsi-Waan" (Persian). The term Tajik is general designation used by Turks with regards to Iranians. Originally, it was used by Zoroastrians (probably Manichean Soghdians too) and Armenians to denote Arabs rather than Persian. However, as Persians converted to Islam, this term began to be used for Persian Muslims. It passed on from Iranian speaking Soghdians to Turks and the Turks started to call all Iranians as Tajik. What is clear that aware Persians (like Rudaki or Ferdowsi) have used the term "Iranian", "Parsi", "Parsi-Dari". In Iran too, still the Qashqai nomads call Persian speakers as "Tajiks". The term Tajik was much more used in the Safavid and Qajar Iran for Persians. Given all this, I believe that Persians of Tajikistan/Afghanistan should call themselves by their native name within their own language which is "Iranian/Persian". The Iranica article also states: "the Fārsiwān (from fārsi-zabān ‘Persian-speaking,’ a name given to them by the Pashtuns), in the west. Neither can properly be called Tajiks. Though nowadays accepted proudly as an autonym (self-designation), the name Tājik was in origin a heteronym, conferred on the Tajiks by others. It did not always have its current connotations, and the Tajiks of today were not always so called. There is some scholarly controversy, and even more popular misunderstanding, surrounding the name.". However I disagree and Farsi-Wan, Tajik are all the same "Persians of Iranian origin". It also states: "The modern meaning of “Tajik” has been distorted in Tajik-language and Russian academic usage (both Soviet and post-Soviet) by the propaganda of the complementary agendas of Soviet nationalities policy and Tajik nationalism, so that the tail often wags the dog. In most scholarly writing on Persian literature and cultural history (of Iran and India as well as Central Asia) the adjective is usually construed as “Perso-Tajik” or “Tajik-Persian” poetry, historiography, etc., in an atopical and anachronistic application of the national ethnonym to the entire Persianate world: e.g., persidsko-tadžikskaia leksikografiia v Indii ‘Perso-Tajik lexicography in India’. This development was due largely to an understandable attempt by influential Tajik writers such as Ṣadr-al-Din ʿAyni and Bobojon Ghafurov, co-opted into the Soviet enterprise, to use Moscow’s own divide-and-rule nationalities policy against Moscow and Tashkent, in order to forestall assimilation of the Tajiks into Stalin’s Greater Russia or (a more immediate threat) Turkic Uzbekistan.".. Given all this, I believe we Iranians (including the Persian speakers of Tajikistan and Afghanistan) should refer to ourselves by the name which our ancestors called themselves in the Sassanid era "Iranian". In Western usage Persian is correct. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T18:15:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-09T18:15:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-09T19:10:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-09T18:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
Dorood Doost Aziz, There are ignorant Iranians no doubt and I had an argument with one who thought that the term Persian is exclusive for people in modern Iran, and tried to belittle a person from Afghanistan who also said he was Persian. Anyhow, ignorance can only be fought with knowledge. But the knowledge needs to be implemented with calm and effective action, not reaction. For example, as you noticed, all the European and Western sources use "Persian" for say Avicenna (he himself uses the term "Farsi" for his language and if you ask him to wrote in "Tajiki" he would not know what that is). You know well that the language by the name "Tajiki" is a Soviet invention (although the ethonym Tajik used by others to refer to Persian Muslims first came before the Soviet invasion). The issue is that the term Persian must not be monopolized by only people from Iran. This is simply wrong. Similarly is the term Iranian. As I noted, the Turks of Qajar, Safavids and even Qashqai ones today use Tajik for Iranian-speakers (mainly Persian). Not all Persian speakers in Afghanistan are called Tajiks by the way, for example the "Farsiwaan" use Farsiwaan historically. But they are Tajik=Persian. What is dangerous in my opinion is to use the term Tajik for Persians of Afghanistan/Tajikistan and use the term "Persian" for Persians of Iran only. We should not care about several dumb people here and there. There is a lot of articles in Iranica (see for example Safavids and Esmail I) which shows Tajik was used for Persians in Iran during these era. However, what happened is that the Persians of Iran (majority specially if you include related Iranic groups, it is 80%) did not have to accept imposed names and were not under foreign rule. So they used the term their ancestors used: "Iranian" and "Parsi". We need to make sure that everyone knows these two terms of Persian/Tajik are the same. However, this should be done in the Tajik and Persian people article. And I have changed the introduction of Persian people to reflect this fact as well. Now anywhere the term Persian is used, people that click on it will see that it refers not only to people in Iran, but also the two countries of Afghanistan and Tajikistan (as well as surrounding areas that has Persian speakers). Actually, at one time, Persians was much more spread and they lost territories in Iraq, Caucasus, Central Asia (Turkomanistan, Uzbekistan,...) etc. That is because as you noted, partly they were not united. The Persians of Bahrain by the way call themselves "Ajam". Ajam like Tajik though is a name that was used by outsiders and later was accepted by us. I think if we can work in the definition of the Tajik and Persian people article, and show the equivalence of these two terms(which is agreed by all scholars), then it is the best way to proceed. Neither does Hafez Shirazi solely belong to me nor does Avicenna solely belong to you. It is the heritage of the Persian civilization of Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan (and surrounding areas). See my latest edit in Persian people article. Note, I speak an Iranian language that is slightly varied from Persian but everywhere I go, I use the term Persian. Because Furs=Ajam=Tajik=Irani is all the same ethnic people(Iranian people), and we should not fall in the trap of divide and conquer. I understand your anger with regards to those Iranians who try to minimize the term Persian but the reaction should not be giving into the same argument of minimizing the word Persian. Rather we need to make sure accurate information is there in the Persian people and Tajik article. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T19:40:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-09T19:40:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Kurdo777-2011-01-10T03:27:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-09T19:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi again. trueknowledge.com is not a WP:RS, it's an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other sources. I really don't see the point of "medieval Persian" and "(Tajik)" when it's not sourced, and the Persian people page makes it clear now that Persian also means Tajik, and Tajiks are Persians. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-10T09:10:00.000Z","author":"Kurdo777","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kurdo777-2011-01-10T09:10:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-10T09:16:00.000Z-Kurdo777-2011-01-10T09:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Doost aziz, Hemayeh maa Paarsi/Tajik/Irani hastam. In Mafaahim baa ham hich Farghi Nadaarand. Just to point out Iranica/Encycloapedia of Islam state his "native language" as Persian. This is indirect reference but the word "native" means ethnicity. If you disagree ghowever, there are even much more specialized books than these Enycloapedias that use the term Persian for him (the book by goodman as an example). I believe, you have an important point with regards to the fact that some people mistake Persian for only Persians of Iran. But, this mistake is not a valid reason to change wikipedia articles against guidelines. The term Tajik means Persian and this is described in the Persian peoples article. So when clicks on this term in Wikipedia, it shows the right result. This is a better way to proceed, since the term Persian in Western literature is an encompassing term for all Persian speakers before even the rise of modern-nation states. Rather than fighting against all the scholarly books (which is an unwinnable fight and also those books are correct as they do not use Persian for citizen of modern Iran, but rather for ethnic Persians which includes Persians of Central Asia), it is better to expend our energy to make sure the term Persian is not monopolized by only people from Iran. If fix up the Persian people article as I have (and could use your help), this will actually be the bet tool against those folks to monopolize the term for only one modern country. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-10T17:54:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T17:54:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-10T18:17:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T17:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam state his native language as Persian. If he was something else, then his native language would be something else. There is no reason to assume why Iranica/Encyclaopedia of Islam did something or did not do something. Also just because Iranica/Encycloapedia of Islam are not as explicit (in my opinion they are), it does not mean they contradict other sources which use Persian. Simply, Enycloapedia of Islam or Iranica might not list ethnicity for every known Persian and Arab figure. For example, Iranica does not list the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [1], but it doesn't contradict other sources which explicitly say he was Persian. Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering to its every Per your claim: "as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics ", I am not sure what official statistics you are using. But the fact is that term Persian should not be exclusive to Persians of Iran and this is not the case when people write history books. I think rather than fighting the term, we should make sure the term is not exclusive by ensuring it in its proper wikipedia article (Persian people). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) precept."[2][reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-10T18:43:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T18:43:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-10T19:15:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T18:43:00.000Z","c-Tajik-2011-01-10T19:19:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T18:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
Drood Doostaan-i Geraami. I am Irani/Farsiwan/Tajik/Parsi .. they are all the same. Artacoana Geraami I disagree with your notion of identity. Please see this article: "Such interpretations of Iranian identity seem to have been influenced by Eurocentric notions of national identity, drawn from Western civic-territorial experiences of nationhood and nationalism. Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit easily into this ethnocentric Western paradigm. The idea of nationhood in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion, whereas Western ideas of nationhood have been historically based on the specific boundaries, the development of legal-rational communities, and civic cultures"[3]. There is a clear differentiation between Parsi/Irani and Turk o Arab in Persian literature. Arab historian Al-Masudi also states: " Al-Masudi : "The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages."" . The problem as I said is to monopolize the term "Persian" by certain Iranians. Even Iranica has not paid enough attention to this. Believe me, I have had heated arguments with a couple of them who were trying to make fun of a person from Afghanistan who said he was Persian. Well I defeated them in that argument. The best way to deal with those misfits is too make sure the Persian peoples article and Tajik article state this fact. Also remember there is a lot of politics of divide and conquer behind this. Many academics and intellectuals have called for the official name of the language to be changed back to "Farsi" and not the Soviet invented term "Tajiki", but unfortunately due to pressure (possibly russian/pan-Turk) this has not occured. In actuality, if you think about it, minimizing the term Persian is occuring from several fronts: A) Some ignorant Iranians b) but also from the USSR, as well as anti-Persian groups in the region (whom you know what they are). We should not fall into their trap, rather we need to show what Persian has meant in history. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-10T19:41:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T19:41:00.000Z-Tajik","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-10T21:47:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-10T19:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
I think we can definitely improve this article. I am sure as a native of Herat, you are proud of him. Some from the top of my head.. الهی مرا آن ده که مرا به ... این جوان جوانمرد باش، و اندر مردی فرد باش، و با دلی پرد درد باش
--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-11T21:24:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-11T21:24:00.000Z-Khwaja_Abdullah_Ansari","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-01-12T02:48:00.000Z-Khodabandeh14-2011-01-11T21:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
You could use the term Tajik in brackets directly after Persian. ...was of Persian (Tajik) origine... or ...was Afghan of Pashtun/Hazara/Tajik origine.... If we do that with the term Afghan than we can do it with the term Persian. It would just build more ties between Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan and the ordinery people would realise that the people of Afghanistan are not only Hazaras and Pashtuns who just speak Persian as first and second language. That would be better for everyone. It is correct, when Persian is used, because Tajik is a synonym for Persian. Hafez and Sadi were born in western Iran but used the word Tajik for themself. The Savafids used it for Iranian people, specially for the Persianspeaking population. In Tibet, the word Tajik still means Persian and is used for all Persianspeaker in Middle-East. In China, they use Hui as designation of all Persianspeakers of Middle-East. You see, there is nothing wrong with the term. We just need to make sure they were of eastern-Iranian Persian origine, at least from modern view, so you can use the Tajik in parentheses. That would be fine.--84.59.184.224 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-15T12:35:00.000Z","author":"84.59.184.224","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-84.59.184.224-2011-01-15T12:35:00.000Z-Khwaja_Abdullah_Ansari","replies":[]}}-->
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Avicenna has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T16:15:00.000Z","author":"MediationBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediationBot-2011-01-17T16:15:00.000Z-Formal_mediation_has_been_requested","replies":[]}}-->
The request for mediation concerning Avicenna, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-23T21:19:00.000Z","author":"AGK","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AGK-2011-01-23T21:19:00.000Z-Request_for_mediation_rejected","replies":[]}}-->(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
دوست گرامی نوروز شما فرخنده و پیروز باد. امیدوارم سال خوبی را در پیش داشته باشید. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-21T13:11:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-03-21T13:11:00.000Z-Nowruz","replies":[]}}-->
دوست گرامی از پیام پرمهر شما سپاسگزارم و بسیار پیام دلنشینی و تاًثیرگذاری بود. آرزوی من هم همینست. پروردگار بزرگوار نگهبان و نگهدار شما بادا. پیروز باشید --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-26T15:14:00.000Z","author":"Khodabandeh14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khodabandeh14-2011-03-26T15:14:00.000Z-Nowruz","replies":[]}}-->
Greetings, I see you've been adding Category:Historiography of Afghanistan to articles about historical locations. Why are you doing this? Historiography is the study of how perceptions of history change over time, not of simply historical events/places. Please explain your reasoning, as I suspect this may be an incorrect use of the category. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-07-08T03:08:00.000Z","author":"MatthewVanitas","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MatthewVanitas-2011-07-08T03:08:00.000Z-Why_are_you_adding_\"Historiography\"_categories?","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-07-08T03:30:00.000Z-MatthewVanitas-2011-07-08T03:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
If you are interested in this article, could you give your opinion as to whether the "Region" section should remain in the template? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-07-27T21:06:00.000Z","author":"Kansas Bear","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kansas_Bear-2011-07-27T21:06:00.000Z-Rumi_article_and_its_template","replies":[]}}-->
Perhaps you would care to explain why you reverted my edits on Avicenna and Rumi, since you wrote nothing in the edit summary on either article. Your statement on the Rumi talk page indicated you were against the "Region" section within the template then you simply removed all my references and replaced it with his place of birth(already mentioned in the template) and place of death(already in the template). You did the same type of editing on Avicenna(adding his pob and pod, which were already mentioned in the template). I will give you this opportunity to explain yourself before I report you for harassment. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-04T18:47:00.000Z","author":"Kansas Bear","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kansas_Bear-2011-09-04T18:47:00.000Z-An_explanation","replies":["c-Artacoana-2011-09-04T18:55:00.000Z-Kansas_Bear-2011-09-04T18:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wiki-Stalking, Battleground mentality and incivility. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-04T20:06:00.000Z","author":"Salvio giuliano","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Salvio_giuliano-2011-09-04T20:06:00.000Z-Notice","replies":[],"displayName":"Salvio"}}-->
Dear Artacoana, don't stress too much. We are starting to have a clearer genetic picture of Iran. The truth is that these rotten Elamites are not even Persians or Iranians (i.e.Aryans). They were just the ruled native people who started taking the identity of their Aryan rulers from Afghanistan after the Saffavid Empire. You should read more about the origin of Persians. They actually came from Herat, Aria, that's what Greek historians have said. These Elamites and Azeris have changed everything about our past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-25T03:25:00.000Z","author":"66.131.3.65","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-66.131.3.65-2012-03-25T03:25:00.000Z-Notice","replies":[]}}-->
Some Persian dude has buggered up Avestan Geography beyond all recognition, using references over 100 years old. I don't know enough about the subject to fix it properly, but I see you did most of the work on the page, so maybe you want to have a look? Megalophias (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-27T03:52:00.000Z","author":"Megalophias","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Megalophias-2013-08-27T03:52:00.000Z-Avestan_Geography","replies":[]}}-->
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-23T16:19:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2015-11-23T16:19:00.000Z-ArbCom_elections_are_now_open!","replies":[]}}-->
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-10-20T01:12:00.000Z","author":"Ser Amantio di Nicolao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao-2016-10-20T01:12:00.000Z-Asian_10,000_Challenge_invite","replies":[]}}-->
Hello Artacoana, your name has been removed from the less active members list at WikiProject Afghanistan/Members and moved to the former section of the members list. This is because you have not edited for over a year. If you become active again, feel free to move your name back to the active members list. Cheers, —Danre98(talk^contribs) 14:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-08-18T14:23:00.000Z","author":"Danre98","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Danre98-2021-08-18T14:23:00.000Z-WikiProject_Afghanistan","replies":[]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.138.33.159