This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Demography of Afghanistan: Afghanistan, history of Afghanistan, Afghan (name), Pashtun people, Tājik people, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The current history section in this page just talks about the origins of Tajiks. We should make a modern era section, that many other ethnic group pages already have. Tajiks have had plenty of history in the USSR, Soviet-Afghan War, Afghan civil war, and the current situation in Afghanistan right now.
Uzbekistans goverment did’t estimate that numbers as 2 to 11 million Tajiks in Uzbekistan. You should put that to the estimate of Richard Foltz. Richard Foltz linked as source to this page told us that he believes that there are between 6 to 11 million Tajiks in Uzbekistan. You changed the numbers please put it back to previous. If Uzbekistans government estimated that as 2 to 11 million please share us sources.
I'm adding the full list of origins and possible origins for the Tajiks from both Tajikistan and Afghanistan. I have added citations, and evidence. Tajiks are a mixed group, they are not actually Persians, but they are their own unique group with their own amazing history, at the same level as Persians. Again they are MIXED. They also have some Greek ancestry due to the Greek conquests of Central Asia. The Greeks and Macedonians lived in Bactria in Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. Have a look at the people referred to as Dayuan in the citations and internal link I added. I believe in honesty. So make sure you understand what true history is, and not make up your own stories. Thanks. Leopardus62 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have references that back up your claims? DNA test results on research papers etc? As far as I know, their closest group (pashtuns) don't have greek admixture beyond a few haplogroups according to latest research Nowtis (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
::replying to what Leopardus said, Tajiks even though they cant be considered "greek" they can be considered descendents of Greco-Bactrians considering that many of there tradition's, cultures and values came from the greeks but it was a mix of the region, the most important thing to Leopardus62 right now should be acknowledging that many histories of tajiks have been lost with the Mongolian genocide of our regions, tajiks could be descendants of a number of the lost eastern iranian tribes, but nonetheless i do think , us tajiks reserve the right to distinguish ourselves from Persians of iran who say we speak "dari"(an insult term to undermine the language we speak , but we understand) and "Pashtuns" who call themselves
Descendents of Israelites,
And are also closely tied to the region of the india, where ironically more pashtuns live in Pakistan outside of "Afghanistan" than the region they claim to.
Still the time i would assume has come for Tajiks, to either they integrate to Pashtun societies or iranian ones, or make one of there own, we cannot let our lives be dictated by corrupt warlords who only think about there own pockets or Pashtuns who wish to change us into there own culture or iranians who consider us alien to themselves and consider themselves "European"(lol)
I do believe tajiks are a unique people that are stuck in a war that they shouldn't be a part of (rule of the majority in afghanistan forces the tajiks to fight for pashtuns and there wars thus putting them in a really hard situation as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose) 2607:FEA8:FC60:7C5A:97EA:B715:7199:993F (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots20:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to show you, of all people, DNA results proving Greek descent. Furthermore it is extremely difficult and largely impossible to pinpoint Greek descent with DNA haplogroups. It's mainly guess work. I have actually studied Genetics at university to know this. Also, no actual studies have conclusively proven that Pashtuns have Greek descent. A lot these studies that are used for Pashtuns are statistical and speculative. The only actual evidence comes from archeology.
So understand that archeology and historical evidence is also evidence used to justify descent and relations. The Macedonians and Greeks heavily colonized and ruled the area of Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan, which was called Bactria. Tajiks are native to Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan (i.e. Bactria). Southern Afghanistan was not Bactria. Also, Bactria was very Greek after that time. The Greco-Bactrian kingdom is an important part of the history of Tajiks. Go read about the Dayuan people, who were related to the Greco-Bactrians, mentioned by ancient historians.
Also, Pashtuns are not originally from northern Afghanistan or Bactria. Look up the article titled 'Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan'. Pashtuns did not live in northern Afghanistan or Bactria, and only recently, in the last 200 years, did they reach northern Afghanistan. In addition, MANY ethnicities in Afghanistan have Greek descent, not just Pashtuns.
Therefore, please research and read the required works regarding historical evidence and archeology (which I have done a lot), and understand that you don't own this article. It is a communal and collaborative work. Don't disrupt the improvement of the article, and take out good information that is usually included in other important Wikipedia articles. Leopardus62 (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article incorrectly claims that Tajiks are "Eastern Iranian." This is factually inaccurate, as "Eastern Iranian" is a linguistic classification and cannot be applied to Tajiks, who are native speakers of Persian—a Western Iranian language. Ancestry (or presumed ancestry) is irrelevant when using precise linguistic terminology. Both Hazaras and Tajiks are, by definition, "Western Iranian peoples" and belong to the broader Persian linguistic and cultural group. All Persian dialects, including Hazaragi and the Tajik dialects of Tajikistan, are more closely related to Kurdish and Tati than to Pashto or Ossetian. Notably, Ossetian is spoken in the outer northwest of the Iranian linguistic world but is still classified as "Eastern Iranian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:71A0:8419:9800:5586:B6A9:8160:E0EF (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could find one instance of Tajik being mentioned and all it says is this; "According to this view, the Bon religion of Zhangzhung represents the first wave of Buddhism into Tibet, and the great Bon-po preceptor gShen-rab (also spelt gShen-rabs), known as dMu-ra in Zhangzhung, is in fact the Buddha. The Bon religion came to Zhangzhung from Bactria and Sogdiana, an area which early Tibetan historians refer to as Ta-zhig or Tag-zig and which, according to Snellgrove (1987: 400), is cognate with `Tajik'". In other words, either am I missing something here or you are (respectfully) engaging in WP:SYNTH. Moreover, I fail to see how this is an expert source on the topic, and scholarship ultimately agrees that "Tajik" is from the Arabic word "tazik/tazig". Please see WP:DUE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Tazig refers to Bactria/Sogdia and is cognate with Tajik, it suggests that the term Tajik may have originally referred to the people of these regions rather than being derived from Tazi (Arab). This would imply that the Tajiks are directly linked to the ancient populations of Bactria and Sogdia, although only Snellgrove stated It's cognate with tajik while others maintained It referred to Bactria/Sogdia, In
https://www.google.se/books/edition/Tibet/RpLAKGG1ZX4C?hl=sv p.99, it says " The story told by Loden Nyingpo's treasure is something like this. The founder of Bon was a man called Shenrab, who lived in Tazig (the land of the Tajiks, in or near Persia) " ... " The Bonpos believe that the teachings of Shenrab travelled from the land of the Tajiks to the ancient Tibetan kingdom of Zhangzhung long before Buddhism came to Tibet "
P.419, Prominent scholars such as Giuseppe Tucci and Jan Van Driem have argued that the term Tazig is more likely linked to Bactria and Sogdia rather than Arabia. Tucci, in his research on Tibetan and Central Asian connections, suggested that Tazig referred to the region of Bactria, where the ancient cultures of Central Asia flourished. Similarly, Van Driem's work on the ethnolinguistic history of the region also supports the idea that Tazig refers to the Iranian-speaking peoples of Bactria and Sogdia, not Arabs. Both scholars align with the notion that the term Tajik could have evolved from Bactria/Sogdia, This interpretation challenges the more commonly accepted view that Tajik derives from Tazi, meaning "Arab."
Furthermore, Berthold Laufer (in the same source I pointed out before) proposed that Bon was not an indigenous Tibetan religion, as traditionally assumed, but rather one that originated in the west, specifically in Bactria and Sogdiana. It writes: "Subsequently, Berthold Laufer formulated the theory that Bon was not an indigenous religion of Tibet, as had hitherto been thought, but a religion which had its roots further west in Bactria and Sogdiana: Es ist irrtümlich, wie bisher zuweilen geschehen, die Bon-Religion ohne weiteres mit der einheimischen tibetischen Volksreligion zu identificiren.... Sie ist... keine tibetische, sondern eine fremde Religion, die auf persischer Grundlage basirt ist, mit allen möglichen fremden Elementen vermischt in Dardistan entwickelt wurde, von da zunächst nach Guge in den westlichen Teil Tibets und später in das centrale Tibet gelangte... Ihre ältesten Traditionen weisen aber, wie gesagt, deutlich genug auf Persien hin. (1908: 13)
Laufer's theory seems to be supported by later studies on the Bon religion by Helmut Hoffmann (1950) and David Snellgrove (1967). So Laufer's thesis has been supported by later scholars, including Helmut Hoffmann (1950) and David Snellgrove (1967).
William M. Gorvine, in his work Envisioning a Tibetan Luminary, also affirms that Tazig was home to ancient kingdoms such as Bactria and Sogdiana. (P.24)
Beyond the Tazig hypothesis, some scholars have also drawn connections between Tahia/Daxia/Ta-Hsia-the Chinese term for the Bactrians- In The Search for the Lost Kingdom of Sagala, historian Charles Allen explicitly associates Tahia with tajik, writing : " They passed through Tayuan [Ferghana] and to the west they smote Ta-hsia [Tajik/Bactria] and subdued it.'. "
This hypothesis is further reinforced in The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, https://www.google.se/books/edition/The_Emergence_of_Modern_Afghanistan/gphzQgAACAAJ?hl=sv which notes: Some Western historians believe the Tajiks are the descendants of the ancient Bactrians, who were called Ta-hia by the Chinese traveler Chian-K'ien in 128 B.c. (see Fraser-Tytler, Afghanistan, pp. 54-55; Wilber, Afghani-stan, 1st ed., p. 45; and Grousset, Auboyer, and Buhot, p. 66). (P.33)
Again, please refrain from engaging in WP:SYNTH. We have an expert source in the article that says that Tazig being Arabic is the "most plausible and generally accepted origin", so cherrypicking random citations by books which doesn't even focus on the topic by non-experts in the topic ain't going to help here. Also, is this your first account? If not, you need to make that clear on your userpages. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it mentions both of these hypothesis, but I think you have misunderstood me on this matter, I am only intending to share this hypothesis to show another side, I don't intend to actually remove the tazi one, I have given you alot of experts who suggested this, that's why I think it should be noted, but no I haven't really had any other accounts, I'm new here. I actually wanted to respond to one of your messages but apparently you deleted it? DarvoziKhan (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it because I misread. It says "The most plausible and generally accepted origin of the word is Middle Persian tāzīk 'Arab' (cf. New Persian tāzi), or an Iranian (Sogdian or Parthian) cognate word.", in other words, it's from a Middle Persian/Sogdian/Parthian and meant "Arab". Please read the policies I posted, including WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the sources, but I don't believe I am the one drawing this conclusion. The hypothesis I have shared is directly cited in the sources I provided. I also trust the reliability of these sources, as the hypothesis is noted in Iranica, the Stanford publication I referenced earlier, alongside the Tazi hypothesis, and by the prominent scholar David Snellgrove.
But again I think you've misunderstood me, I only intend to share another hypothesis, while keeping the tazi one, I don't see a problem since these sources say it and are pretty reliable! DarvoziKhan (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you ignoring Encyclopedia Iranica I just told you about, That's reliable aswell as the Standford and Oxford publications? But yeah I think Snellgrove is good, since he specializes in Tibet and this hypothesis is mostly derived from the Tibetans who adhere to Bonpo Shenrab. DarvoziKhan (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you many times already, I only intend to add this hypothesis, and to keep the tazi one aswell. I am being Neutral, And who the hell is Sohrab? DarvoziKhan (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? You accuse me of being some random person when I respond to everything you say, I've proven all my sources directly state what I shared here, and that they are reliable, I don't understand your problem? DarvoziKhan (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)