Talk:Tajiks in China

Dispute of the title "Pamiris in China"

I have studied about the Tajiks in China for more than a decade. I've looked at Chinese, Tajik, and English language sources. I have NEVER seen anyone refer to the Tajiks of China as Pamiris. I also wrote the original "Pamiri people" article, so I don't feel that I am being anti-Pamiri in my statements. I have placed "fact" tags where "Pamiri" has been used to describe the Tajik population of China. I'd love to see some sources that prove me wrong.David Straub (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. The change-title action. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

David, can you recommend an unambiguous title for this article? Sarikoli Tajiks? Chinese Tajiks? Mountain Tajiks?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Tajiks of China" is not a bad title (it's better than "Tajiks in China"). Titles such as "Mountain Tajiks", "'Plateau Tajiks" or "Chinese Tajiks" are not appropriate (they are not common in English books or academic articles). In this case, a descriptive title is much better. Alefbe (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "Tajiks of Xinjiang" (not "Tajiks in Xinjiang") is also a good option. Alefbe (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do all of these people live in China? The infobox seems to say that some live in Tajikistan (I apologise for my lack of knowledge on this subject).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox should become consistent with the topic of the page. This page is about the minority ethnic group in Xinjiang who speak various Eastern Iranian languages. Although most of them speak Sarikoli and most of the speakers of Sarikoli are in Xinjiang, this page is not primarily about the Sarikoli language. Alefbe (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Now the problem is:

1. There're some Sarikoli Tajiks in Tajikistan (1000~2000, inhabitant), so we can't use the name "Tajiks of China" or "Tajiks in China".
2. There're some Wakhi Tajiks in China, they moved to Tashkurgan in Qing dynasty, so we can't call them "Sarikoli Tajiks".
3. Tajiks in China wants to be called Tajik people, so we can't call them "Pamiri people in China".
4. I searched Chinese articles, some of them mentioned "they differ from the major Tajiks in central Asia - plain Tajik", for disambigation, they call them "plateau Tajiks" in Chinese and "highland Tajiks" in English.
5. Some Chinese articles mentioned "Tajiks - People of (Those who live in) Pamiri plateau", but none of them mentioned "Pamiri people".

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any objection with Tajiks of Xinjiang? Alefbe (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that title. If we know what the autonym used by these people is (which would require that there is one autonym consistently used by them), I would also consider treating this as a special case in view of the polysemy of "Tajik" and using the autonym instead. Other than that, I think Tajiks of Xinjiang is the best option.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There're some Sarikoli Tajiks in Tajikistan (1000~2000, inhabitant), so we can't use the name "Tajiks of Xinjiang". --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the name "Tajiks of pan-Pamiri area" is more accurate title. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is not about all the Pamiri people (for that we have Pamiri people), but a subset of them. This page is about the Eastern-Iranian-speaking people of Xinjiang (who are referred to as Tajiks, in China). Alefbe (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right, so I said "Tajiks of pan-Pamiri area" not "Pamiris of pan-Pamiri area". Also, I think "Tajiks of pan-Tashkurgan area" is a good name. However, all of them are man-made name, so I think it's better to use the already-exist name - "plateau Tajiks". --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "pan-Tashkurgan" does not limit the distribution of them, since "pan-Tashkurgan" is not "Tashkurgan". "Tajiks of China" and "Tajiks of Xinjiang" are man-made name, too. Also, these 2 name limit the distribution of plateau Tajiks. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Tajiks of Xinjiang" is a descriptive title that precisely defines them. "Plateau Tajiks" is not a descriptive title and is not popular in English books (search google books or google scholar), so it's not appropriate for the title of these page (being widely used is very important for non-descriptive titles). Good descriptive titles should be made of precise terms (which are also common in English books and articles). "pan-Tashkurgan area" is not a well-known or well-defined term. Alefbe (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. "Tajiks of Xinjiang" does never precisely define them: since there're Sarikoli people in Tadjikistan;
2. "Plateau Tajiks" is a descriptive title - it discribes them by Geographics.
3. Why "pan-Tashkurgan area" is not a well-defined term? (though I don't think it's the best title, too.)

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Tajiks (or its variants) refers to all Pamiris and this page is not about all Pamiris, so it is not a good title for this page. Alefbe (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article topic

There seems to be some degree of disagreement about what the topic of this article should be. Let's address that directly. Yu Hai seems to be arguing that this article is about X group of people (known as Tǎjíkèzú in Chinese) regardless of where they live. Alefbe, on the other hand, argues that this article is about the X group's population in China specifically (there are lots of articles like that, such as Vietnamese people in China and ethnic Mongols in China). So, which should it be? I would like to ask, regarding Yu Hai's suggestion, is it redundant with some other existing article? My impression is that Tǎjíkèzú might simply be a term used in Chinese to refer to any East Iranian-speaking groups that live in the PRC. If that's the case, then an article about "Tǎjíkèzú people wherever they live" would just be an article about East Iranian speakers, which I don't think is what this article is supposed to be.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some subtle difference bewteen highland Tajiks and East Iranian-speakers - highland Tajiks does not cover all groups in East Iranian-speakers. Also there's no such article called East Iranian-speakers in Wikipedia, and such a name can't be a title of an encyclopedia. There's an article called Pamiri people, but it's not same to highland Tajiks, too. And Tajiks in China didn't want to be called names other than Tajiks. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the relationship between the "Highland Tajiks" and the Pamiris?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Highland Tajiks are Sarikoli people all over the world and Wakhi people in China, who migrated here in 1800s as refugees and have lived together with Sarikoli people. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Tajiks (or its variants) is just a less common name for Pamiris. Alefbe (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See ↑ and another difference is "Tajiks" is the very name Sarikoli people want to be called (at least in 1950s). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why 虞海 keeps changing the title to "Plateau Tajiks", and other terms. It is like falsely claiming Kurds as Mountain Turks. Pamiris in China speak Eastern Iranian languages and do NOT understand Persian/Tajik language. The title "Tajiks of Xinjiang" is misleading and not correct. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Eastern Iranian languages=Eastern Persian languages, but I agree that they do not speak Persian at all.
2. There're 2 Tajik languages - Plain Tajik language (which is often called Tajik language directly) and Plateau Tajik language (which by no mean is equal to Tajik language in Tajikistan). Plateau Tajiks speak Plateau Tajik language (incl. Sarikoli dialect and Wakhi dialect).
3. It's similar to the relation between the Greek-Macedonia and Yugoslav-Macedonia, where Yugoslav-Macedonia is often called Macedonia directly.
4. I'm sorry I didn't take your idea into consideration, for I didn't think massage sent by an IP of an educational institution take it serious (I thought it's merely a message for joking or something).

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, Persian/Tajik is Western Iranian and came from Fars. Eastern Iranian is another, distantly related, group of languages that originate in Afghanistan/Bactria/Scythia etc.
2. It depends on the sources one use.
3. I agree. There are 3 different ethnic groups - Ancient Macedonians, Slavics Macedonians and even Greeks Macedonians.
4. Thanks for the response! 116.58.100.78 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's the point? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What "Tajiks" refers to

In Turkic language, "Tajik" originally referred to Pamiris, medieval Bactrians, Sogdians and Chorasmians, and Pashtuns etc - i.e. East Iranian. (Not Persians that are Southwest Iranian and didn't live in the area 1000 years before.) But in English wikipedia, unlike in Turkic, unfortunately, "Tajik" refers to Central Asian Persian. I think the meaning of "Tajik" has changed and the term can not be used here.

See Tajiks[1] "Language: Darī; Tajiki dialects. Of the basic Mediterranean sub-stock, they show Mongoloid attributes increasingly from south to north."

For Pamiri people, I think the terms "Pamiri" or "Ghalcha" are better, and "Tajik" is wrong, although historically "Tajik" was used in Turkic language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.100.78 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there are some points missing in the above arguments, that is, the term "Tajik" is what is officially designated the name of the this group in China today and this is the word that this population use to identify themselves. In addition, I dare someone to show me a piece of literature from a reputable source, and that has been written in the last half-century, that reference to this group by any other term. You will find the term Sarikoli and Wakhi used, but these are sub-terms that refer to linguistic groups within the Tajik population. And please double check your sources with any Chinese language sources. The Tajiks in China have almost no written records in their own languages and today virtually everything written in China about the Tajiks is written in Chinese, including materials written by Chinese Tajik scholars about their own community. As for the above comment, "For Pamiri people, I think the terms "Pamiri" or "Ghalcha" are better, and "Tajik" is wrong, although historically "Tajik" was used in Turkic language," show me your sources David Straub (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. But you seem to not know that "Tajik" is not Pamiri word and not commonly used by the people themselves. The original self-identification of Pamiris is Badakhshani (not Tajik). The different tribes are called Khik, Sarikoli etc. In Soviet, Chinese and Tajikistan sources, "Tajik" is used and their identity is supressed that you seem to be supporting. Academia use the term "Pamiri people" for them, which is what we should be using. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, show me a pre-Soviet reference that uses the term Pamiri. The Pamirs before 1900 was not a unified political unit and the Wakhi, Shughni, Sarikoli, Kyrgyz etc fought among themselves, captured each others peoples for the slave trade, and openly courted alliances with outside powers. If anything, the prevailing term of identity was most likely Ismaili, not an ethnic one, such as Pamiri, Badakhshan, or Tajik. The term "Pamiri" was in fact promoted by Soviet authorities. Second, you're comment that "'Tajik' is used and their identity is supressed that you seem to be supporting," is an overt personal attack against me and a violation of wikipedia rules. And if you want to attack me personally, why don't you sign in and present your real name? David Straub (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tajiks uses the word "Taji" refers to their crown, no matter western Iranian or eastern Iranian. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In Afghanistan, the terms used for the people in eastern Badakhshan province are "Badakhshani" and "Pamiri". Historically "Badakhshani" was used, but now "Pamiri" is more commonly used (see Afghan national anthem). 116.58.100.78 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In Western Region nations, people called East Iranian speakers, West Iranian speakers and Arabic people Taji, and when this word transcripted into Chinese, is "大食". Nowadays, Sarikoli people themselves recognized this name. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My take on this (perhaps surprisingly lively) debate is that this entry ought to be little more than a disambiguation page to clarify the name for the Chinese "Tajik" nationality. The existing Pamiri pages, both on language and ethnicity, are good and interested readers ought to be directed to them; the only distinctive issue here, in my view, is that (for potentially interesting but strictly historiographical reasons) there is confusion about the term "Tajik." As DS points out above, the basic fact of the matter here is that Tajik is a 'nationality' in the PRC. To me, that's about all you need to say beyond clarifying the distinction between different uses of the term.Penalba2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Source

As for David Straub's comment "In addition, I dare someone to show me a piece of literature from a reputable source, and that has been written in the last half-century, that reference to this group by any other term."

Here is a source about Pamiri people in Tajikistan: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,49709ec52,49749c9e37,0.html PAMIRIS: "Pamiris are considered 'Tajik' by the authorities in Dushanbe, but they are widely considered to constitute a separate ethnic group, differing from Tajiks in terms of language, religion and culture. Pamiri languages are a Southeastern branch of the Iranian language family. Additionally, while most Tajiks are Sunni, Pamiris are followers of the Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. They refer to themselves as Badakhshani or Pomir in their own languages."

And another source: "There are about 50,000 people living in the Tajik Autonomous District identified as Tajiks in the Chinese census. However, these people can be called Tajiks only in the broadest sense. The Sarikoli and Wakhi Chinese Pamir nationalities, as well as the Tajik, Pakistani and Afghan Pamir nationalities who live in Chinese Pamir, speak languages belonging to the Eastern Iranian language group, whereas Tajik is linked to Western Iranian."

Can you now see that whenever there is reputable source, they are called Pamiri people? Or still not? 116.58.100.78 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

These sources confirm Pamiri people have no close relation with Persian Tajiks proper.

I suggest to move the article to Pamiris of China. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My friend, I know Igor Rotar. He's a fine journalist, but he does not speak Chinese and he concentrated his work in ex-Soviet Central Asia, where the term "Pamiri" is commonly used. I could post 100 sources here in Chinese, including those writting by Chinese Tajiks, that states they are indeed referred to at "Tajiks" in all Chinese language sources. By the way, it would help if you signed your name to your statements.

As for the other UN source, read the first sentence "Pamiris are considered 'Tajik' by the authorities in Dushanbe, but they are widely considered to constitute a separate ethnic group, differing from Tajiks in terms of language, religion and culture." This source itself states that the official term in Tajikistan is "Tajik" and that there is no concensus in Tajikistan about this issue. I am not disputing that the Pamiri exists in Tajikistan and that calling the population in Gorno-Badakhshan Tajik is controversial, but calling the Ismaili Pamiri-language speaking population in Afghanistan or China "Pamiris" is also controversial and not common at all in the sources written in thouse countries. Besides, there are certainly many "Pamiris" in Tajikistan who would also consider themselves "Tajiks", ask Davlat Khudonazarov.

I think what is happening to this Tajiks of Xinjiang page is getting pretty close to vandalism and is definately in violation the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I am flying to China tomorrow. I'll address this issue more next week when I get to my final destination there.David Straub (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that in this article that term should be used which academia prefer (i.e. "Pamiri"), instead of using a controversial term in the title. You are wrong - the term Pamiri is common in Afghanistan. (Tajik is never used for Pamiris atleast in Afghanistan.) Hope you have a good journey. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My take: right or wrong, the name for the 'nationality' in China is Tajik, which may require explanation but is worth describing alongside other nationalities in China using that term.Penalba2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

To David Straub:If possible, could you check the Sarikoli of Shiaogong Bahar? (The plateau Tajik name of Nuwruz.) Also, check my statement that they use "'Taji' refers to their crown"? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To 116.58.100.78: What's your opinion about my comments before? I think I need to care the Chinese Wikipedia - they mixed plateau Tajiks and plain Tajiks together, I've added warning template to that article to tell the readers that that article mislead people. Also, I corrected some errors. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm an anti-Pamiri or an anti-plain-Tajik. For long times this article gave wrong info (which mixed plateau Tajiks and plain Tajiks) and I corrected them. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To 虞海 (Yú Hǎi), the so called "plateau Tajiks" (East Iranian speaking Pamiris) and "plain Tajiks" (Persian-speaking Tajiks proper) need not to be mixed together. There is an article Pamiri people, that also refers to Pamiris in China (Sarikoli and northern Wakhi) as "Pamiri people", and the term Pamiri is widely used by academia, that's why it's also used in the article lead. Other terms like "plateau Tajiks" that are sometimes also used for Pamiris are also mentioned in the article. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that plateau Tajiks and plain Tajiks need not to be mixed together, but we need to respect their self-identification.

A Baidu user: "中国的白人" wrote All for TUJIK AVON, so it seems he's a "Tajiks of Xinjiang". He posted(pasted) an article 塔吉克”是本民族的自称，是“王冠” 的意思。, so we know that Tajik is their self-identification.

It seems you're a Pamiri from Pakistan, so I think you can talk with him through Romanlization of East Iranian languages. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tujik people

I advice the name Tujik people, it's transcription of Sarikoli: Tujik ziv – Hanzu ziv lughot --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We use the common name in English texts, not necessarily the transcription of the native pronunciation. Alefbe (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the English term is "Tajik", that can refer to many peoples in the broadest sense, but refers to only Persian speakers in the region when used in its proper sense. (see Tajik language and Tajik people) 116.58.100.78 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But, Alefbe, you moved plain Tajiks to Tājik people, isn't it a native pronunciation？ --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the native pronunciation is Salikuer and Wahan. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you say that? Still, there's no Roman transliteration for Sarikoli language. (So Salikuer can't be a Sarikoli Romanlization.) --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits by unregistered user

I am concerned by the number and type of edits being made by an editor using the isp 116.58.100.78 . I suspect that these edits are actually being made by a registered user who does not want to use their username. These edits unclude complete reverts of pages, deletion of sources that do not support their view, and the repeated change of any reference of "Tajik" to Pamiri, despite the fact that there was a lengthy discussion above to change the name of this page from Pamiri people in China to Tajiks in Xinjiang 116.252.76.44 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems he do not want to register an username. This IP have much comments in this talk page. It's an IP of Pakistan education organization. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attack me if you are unable to find a source claiming Pamiris are Persians. Also don't confuse the Turkic word "Tajik" with the Persian word for crown. Besides, in Sarikoli or Wakhi languages, which we need to consider instead of Persian, taj or taji doesn't mean crown. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack you - 116.252.76.44 guess that "being made by a registered user who does not want to use their username" so I gave him another possibility. You can deny us anytime. In fact, I meant to ask you "why not register an username" since it's hard to check which 2 IP are same.

Also, I'm busy these days so your comment mightnot be replied as soon as I saw it.

I did never claiming Pamiris are Persians. Speaking Tajiks does not means they're Persians. I agree that plain Tajik speak Tajik Persian, but Tajik language, which plateau Tajiks speak, is a East Iranian languages.

Does Taji means crown in Sarikoli dialect? You can ask (plateau) Tajiks in China: [2] - just use latin transcription of Pamiri language and they might understand. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In Chinese sources

User:David Straub asked me to add my comment. I originally created this page in order to hold content about the members of this ethnic group in China. Similar to Ethnic Mongols in China, Koreans in China, and other cross-border ethnic groups. But I haven't been watching this debate too closely, and I don't have much of an opinion. Anyway I'll try to give a more complete overview of the Chinese sources.

All the online sources and a big proportion of the offline sources in Chinese state word for word:

“塔吉克”是本民族的自稱，據民間傳說，該詞的原意為“王冠”。 = Tajike is the self-identification of this ethnic group. According to folk legend, this word means "crown".

I think this is copied from an official document somewhere; it probably reflects "Whatever the Soviet Union says, let's say the exact opposite" political correctness ...

There's a couple of other viewpoints/more details in print sources [3]:

• 中国少数民族语言使用情况: 塔吉克族有有薩里庫爾和瓦罕兩種自稱 = Tajikezu have two different ways of calling themselves: Salikuer and Wahan
• 新疆民族, p65: “塔吉克“ （TAJIK) 一名由“塔吉”（王冠）加上后缀 “－K” 组成，意为“王冠之族”，主要居住在塔吉克斯坦共和国，分为平原塔吉克和高山塔吉克。新疆的塔吉克是高山塔吉克人的一支，大都居住于帕米尔高原及其附近地区。 = The name "Tajik" comes from "Taji" (crown) plus the suffix "-k", meaning "the tribe of the crown". Most live in the Republic of Tajikistan. They are divided into Plains Tajiks and Mountain Tajiks. The Tajike of Xinjiang are part of the Mountain Tajik branch. They mostly live in the Pamir Plateau and surrounding areas.

That last one is an example of what Yu Hai was mentioning above.

But this is just a shallow overview from Google. Chinese books aren't too well represented in GBooks. I have a copy of 塔吉克语简志 somewhere at home, or maybe I lent it out to someone, which I recall discusses this issue a bit more, but for anything else, I'd have to head for the library. cab (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Who remove the History Tag?

this edit

Please explain the reason. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Project links

I removed them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 7#Blanking of links. The Joshua Project data are full of errors (22,000 Koreans in Mozambique? 7,000,000 Mandarin speakers in Indonesia?), and their habit of dividing up self-identified single ethnic groups into multiple ones based on spoken dialect differences makes things even worse. I don't find them to be a reliable source either for ethnic group naming or for population numbers. cab (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarikoli and Wakhi are Pamiri people

Salikuer and Wahan are the terms we should be using in the article, as these are the original self-identifications of the people. Using Tajik is wrong and misleading. I can quote many sources that both Sarikoli and Wakhi are widely considered to be Pamiri people, not West Iranians Tajiks, by scholars. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sarikoli/Salikuer and Wakhi/Wahan are Pamiri languages. Agreed. Not controversial.
• Pamiri languages are East Iranian, not West Iranian. Agreed. Not controversial.
• The language spoken in Dushanbe is West Iranian. Agreed. Hopefully not controversial.
• The common English names for those two Pamiri languages are Sarikoli and Wakhi. Hopefully not controversial.
• I would prefer to use common English names for these already-obscure languages, over the 'original self-identifications.' Debatable. Perhaps some elegant middle ground is possible.
• "Using Tajik is wrong and misleading." I disagree; that is the Chinese name of the formally designated nationality. It is certainly confusing and you might be correct to say that its wrong, but that's what the PRC calls it and that fact ought to be acknowledged. We're not going to change Chinese minority naming here. Penalba2000 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic Pamiris in China" is not controversial and widely used. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL = 0 GHits. cab (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing language and ethnicity

I think one of the problems with the recent edits to this article is that there is a confusion between language and ethnicity.

The term Pamir languages is universaly recognized and the group of people that is discussed in this article does fall under this category. Wakhi and Sarikoli are categorized as Pamir langauges.

The difference though is when the term Pamiri is used as an ethnic term, as in Pamiri people. This was a term constructed by Soviet scholars during the mid-20th century. And as far as I can tell, it has been embraced by the people in the former Soviet Union who it applies to, i.e. the speakers of Pamiri languages who live in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province. During the Civil war in Tajikistan in the 1990s the Pamiri population actually organized themselves into militias and in 1992-93 Pamiris were targeted for mass killings.

The problem is how to apply the term Pamiri, in an ethnic sense, outside of the former Soviet Union. Does this apply to populations in Afghanistan? I don't know. I haven't seen any sources of Pamiri language speakers applying the term to themselves. Can someone show me a Pre-Soviet era source that uses the term Pamiri in terms of ethnicity? Choose any language? Russian? Tajik? Persian? Chinese? English? I doubt if the they exist. The term used in China to describe the speakers is of Wakhi and Sarikoli is the word Tajik. I don't think it is the place of wikipedia to educate the Sarikoli and Wakhi speakers in China and tell them that they are actually Pamiris.David Straub (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone show me a Pre-Soviet era source that uses the term "Tajik" in terms of ethnicity for Pamiri people? 116.58.100.78 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right -- lots of confusion here between language and ethnicity and, I would add, politics. This article is an entry on a political entity, a Chinese (PRC) created designation. Penalba2000 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then by your logic, there should be also an article, Allemand in France, a French created designation for German people, even if it's not used in English language for Germans. 116.58.100.78 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if you say Pamiri is "a term constructed by Soviet scholars during the mid-20th century", you should also not ignore that the term Tajik was also constructed recently and not found in historical texts. In the proper sense, Tajik refers to Persian speakers (please see the references I quoted earlier; also see Tajik language which is a Persian dialect). 116.58.100.78 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is that source again: "There are about 50,000 people living in the Tajik Autonomous District identified as Tajiks in the Chinese census. However, these people can be called Tajiks only in the broadest sense. The Sarikoli and Wakhi Chinese Pamir nationalities, as well as the Tajik, Pakistani and Afghan Pamir nationalities who live in Chinese Pamir, speak languages belonging to the Eastern Iranian language group, whereas Tajik is linked to Western Iranian." Pamiri people are (non-Tajik) Pamir nationalities.

Request to move page from Tajiks of Xinjiang to Tajiks in China

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Tajiks of Xinjiang → Tajiks in China — I propose moving the article Tajiks in Xinjiang to Tajiks in China. This is the only article about minority groups in China that uses the name of the province rather than the country in the article title. For other examples see Mongols_in_China, Koreans_in_China, Vietnamese_people_in_China, and Russians_in_China. Very few other articles about minority groups would use a province or state versus a country in the name. Moreover, this page’s original title was Tajiks in China and was changed to Pamiris in China by a user who eventually had their account permanently blocked (see:User_talk:Banigul). The move was in violation of Wikipedia move protocol in that there was neither a discussion on the talk page nor was there a request to move the page. This page was then moved again without a request or discussion from Plateau Tajiks to Pamiri people in China, then to Mountain Tajik people, and finally Tajiks in Xinjiang. Within the article the term Tajik has been replaced by Pamiri by a single editor and there is currently an open dispute discussion the talk page. In my opinion, the term Tajik is more appropriate than Pamiri because the official name of the minority group in China is Tajik, virtually all of the literature with a very small number of exceptions refers to this group as Tajik, and the Ethnic groups in China page refers to the group as Tajiks, as does the map of ethnolinguistic groups in China. David Straub (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose If you are concerned about mentioning the name of country, we can have Tajiks of China, but Tajiks in China is misleading, because it implies that they are exactly the same ethnic group as other Tajiks (whose mother language is a variety of Persian) while they are not. So, the terms Tajiks of Xinjiang and Tajiks of China are fine for this case, but Tajiks in China and Tajiks in Xinjiang are misleading (because they imply another meaning). Alefbe (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While I take your point in to consideration, I don't think that grammar wise there is a substantial difference between "in" and "of" when describing minority groups living within the confines of certain countries. Besides, any confusion can be defused by simply adding that they are distinct from the Tajik people, whom there is an article about in wikipedia. But I where I do think we need to be concerned is making sure that there is a certain degree of uniformity among related articles in wikipedia. The articles Mongols in China, Koreans in China, Vietnamese people in China, and Russians in China all use the word "in" rather than "of."David Straub (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I originally created this article at Tajiks in China almost exactly three years ago, but I don't particularly know whether that's the best name. Consistency with other articles isn't really the strongest rationale for moving an article. To be honest I kinda thought the current title works better, though I couldn't really tell you why I think that. I weakly agree with Alefbe that "in" vs. "of" are a bit different, e.g. "the men in the house" vs. "the men of the house" --- the former referring to any random males standing there when the speaker utters this sentence, the latter customarily referring to the male family members who live there. But I don't know if the same distinction holds when you're talking about ethnic groups.

Also the anon's POV-pushing is a separate issue --- obviously "Pamiri people in China" is not the common name (and there's some cleanup that needs to be done in the article), but between "Tajiks in/of Xinjiang/China", there's no particularly strong consistency of usage in English WP:RS:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Similarly in Chinese, there's no strong preference for referring to them as "China's Tajiks" rather than "Xinjiang's Tajiks":

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheers, cab (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The above point is well taken, but I want to point out that this article is about the Tajiks who are citizens of the state of China and thus having "Xinjiang" in the title of this article is a bit awkward. Tajiks can move out of the province of Xinjiang and are still citizens of the People's Republic of China. It would be like having an article about the Yao population in China and calling it "Yao of Yunnan" or "Yao in Yunnan and Guizhou", or should there be seperate articles entitled "Yao of Yunnan", "Yao of Guizhou", "Yao of Guangxi" etc. They ar all citizens of the People's Republic of China so if there were to be a seperate article for the Yao, I think "Yao in/of China" would make the most sense. Or take example in Central Asia, let's say, the "Kyrgyz in/of Badakhshan" rather than the "Kyrgyz of Afghanistan." Even though the Tajiks who live in China are concentrated in Xinjiang province, the fact that they warrent a seperate article from Tajik people is that they are in a seperate country, not a seperate province.

As for the "in" versus "of" aspect, I don't hold any strong preferences either way, but in an encyclopedia it would be best of there was a uniform format for all articles within a certain category, in this case, minorities in China.David Straub (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment but the other articles you mention don't show that these peoples are located in a single province, unlike the Tajiks. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response. Actually, there are articles about Chinese ethnic minorities which live in only one province, including articles about people's who live both in and outside of China. Besides, it is a bit illogical to only use the provincial names in aticle titles of Chinese ethnic minorities when the minority group is located in a single province, but then minorities live in multiple provinces include the name of the country. If that was the case then the article Vietnamese people in China, who live in Guangxi province, would be entitled "Vietnamese in Guangxi Province" and the Russians in China, who live in Xinjiang province, article would be changed to Russians in Xinjiang", yet then there would be articles entitled Mongols in China and Koreans in China. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There should be some degree of uniformity among related articles.

And it is not as if using the title "Tajiks in China" would be a radical idea. That was the name of the article when it was first written in 2006 until January 2009 when a user who has since been banned as a puppet moved the article without any discussion to "Pamiris in China." (see move edit; see edit within 20 minute time period that changed text to Pamiri) David Straub (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly Oppose: Highland Tajiks do not distribute in China only, but also the whole Pamir plateau. I do also think the prep should be "of". --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jahangir

Jahangir Khoja was a sunni sufi fundamentalist. His contained sunni tajiks from central asia who speak the real tajik language. This article is about the pamiri ismaili shia tajiks found only in badakhshan and xinjiang. I deleted paragraphs which are talkinga bout the actual tajiks, move them to history of tajikistan or somehwere else.Jeumbledde (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Shighni (ghalchah) dialect

http://books.google.com/books?id=JL4IAAAAQAAJ

http://books.google.com/books?id=up2jpwAACAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions

Kuoofra (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Language

In Medieval Europe, people spoke their local languages among themselves such as Italian, French, Castilian, while not writing them down and using them as literary languages until much later. They wrote in Latin as their literary language.

In the same way, the some minorities in Chna do not have an alphabet for their own language. They only speak their language orally, and use the Chinese or another major language like Uyghur to write.

The Tajiks of Xinjiang only speak their own language orally, and use the Uyghur language to write.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWc2I03-UQIC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

On the Ghalchah languages (Wakhand Sarikol (1876)

https://archive.org/details/onghalchahlangua00shaw

Government policies were in favor of Uyghurs when Persian language was abolished in Tajik schools in 1954.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chinese-iranian-ix

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chinese-iranian-viii

Rajmaan (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment among Sarikoli (Tajiks of Xinjiang) in 1900

In response to increased Tsarist Russian activity in Sarikol around 1900, the local Sarikoli begs and Sarikoli people feared that Russia was going to annex the region and take it away from China, fearing molestation at the hands of the Russians, they wanted to flee to Yarkand. They did not believe the official explanation that Russia was only concerned with the postal service in the area.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTn-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2BFHU4umB6rNsQTVqYDADQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=100%20petty%20Sarikol%20protested%20against%20Russians%20molest&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DgIAQAAIAAJ&q=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&dq=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2BFHU4umB6rNsQTVqYDADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTn-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QRJHU76nJ-qwsAT144CoBg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=On%208%20February%20a%20deputation%20from%20Sarikol%20arrived%20at%20Yarkand%20and%20presented%20to%20the%20Amban%20three%20petitions%20which%20bore%20the%20seals%20of%20six%20headmen%20and%20the%20thumb-marks%20of%20about%20100%20petty%20Sarikol%20officials.%20They%20protested%20against%20the%20arrival%20of%20the%20Russians%20and%20asked%20to%20be%20given%20land%20near%20Yarkand%20as%20they%20were%20certain%20that%20the%20Russians%20would%20molest%20them.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DgIAQAAIAAJ&q=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&dq=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QRJHU76nJ-qwsAT144CoBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

Rajmaan (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus developed below to move the page to the alternate title Tajiks in China. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 20:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Tajiks of Xinjiang → Chinese Tajiks – In previous discussions over a decade and a half ago, the main points of contention were: "Which name(s) is more commonly used in reliable sources (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME)?" and "Which name(s) is appropriate, given that 'Tajik' is a misnomer because the group is actually ethnic Pamiris?" Since the discussions in 2009, scholarly articles and books have generally been split in usage of "Tajiks of Xinjiang" and "Chinese Tajiks". Neither name solves the second problem, and adding "Pamiris" in parentheses isn't necessary, in my opinion. The group itself has a distinct history and culture, and it is not merely a situation of Pamiris being on a different side of an international border (i.e. not Tajikistan). The Chinese government uses the term "Chinese Tajiks" in English to distinguish the group from Tajiks and Tajikistanis in China. It's also worth noting that members of this ethnic group have travelled and made homes elsewhere in China, so it doesn't make sense to have an article title that limits them to one specific part of the country. This article isn't about Tajiks or Pamiris who live in Xinjiang, but a distinct ethnicity that originated from the region. The article should therefore be renamed and moved to "Chinese Tajiks". Yue🌙 01:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on NPOV (the CCP name for pretty much everything is "China's XXXX" or "Chinese XXXX" to emphasise their ownership of it), accuracy (these are specifically the Tajiks originating from Xinjiang). We also do not automatically adopt official names per WP:OFFICIALNAME. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've never heard of that specific claim of Chinese chauvinism, but presumably that would apply to every other ethnic group too (e.g. "Chinese Zhuang", "Chinese Uyghurs", "Chinese Tibetans", etc., which I've never heard before) and there should be some reliable sources out there pertaining to that claim, which I have never seen. The current title "Tajiks of Xinjiang" is not much better either because by the same logic, Xinjiang is a Chinese-centered name with origins of Chinese chauvinism predating the CCP.

  Regardless, as I argue, the current title is not precise because these "Pamiris", who call themselves "Tajiks", are not geographically limited to Xinjiang like wild animals in natural habitats.

  I would have preferred and proposed Sarikolis and Wakhis, but they're two subgroups of the wider ethnic group and that naming seems unconventional. I.e. The Sarikolis and Wakhis are ethnic Pamiris ... . The Chinese government's official name for the group is "Chinese Tajiks". Yue🌙 20:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you will have certainly seen "China's Taiwan province" and "Chinese Taipei". FOARP (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I personally wouldn't make that comparison though because

  1. "Chinese Tajiks" is a term used (roughly) equally with "Tajiks of Xinjiang" in scholarly works, whereas "Chinese Taipei" is only used by the Chinese government and its supporters when referring to Taiwan.
  2. These people live in commonly recognised Chinese borders whereas Taiwan is not within said borders.

  Regardless, I don't heavily favour either the current title or "Chinese Tajiks" because both use geographical markers that aren't accurate. I prefer Sarikols and Wakhis, and I find the use of the descriptor "of Xinjiang" to echo the Orientalism and dehumanisation of old ethnography. It's like if Han Taiwanese was titled "Chinese of Taipei" or "Han of Taiwan". The title isn't describing an identity but an ethnicity in a set geographical area (when said ethnicity is not limited to a set geographical area). Yue🌙 21:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  FOARP, I'm gonna second Yue on this one. The current title is more chauvinist, dehumanizing, and inaccurate than the proposed "Chinese Tajiks". Obviously neither is ideal, but I'm not following the logic of your oppose !vote. For the closer, I support this move as a marginal improvement, but I realize that this probably isn't a clear enough consensus to actually move the page, and due to the niche and sensistive subject area I don't expect such a consensus to emerge. Toadspike [Talk] 17:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sadly, it looks like all the participants in previous move discussion except @David Straub are no longer active. Pinging to let him know about this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 07:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)See my response below. David Straub (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Going to see if we can get a few more comments if we notify the interested WikiProjects Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Central Asia, WikiProject Ethnic groups, and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yue raises a valid point. We are not describing livestock here. Naming conventions pertaining to ethnic groups must balance sensitivity with scholarship. Could we rename the article to what the group prefers to call itself and create redirects for how the mainstream public may refer to this group? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, from this article, other articles, and the two previous move discussions on this talk page, they prefer to be called "Tajiks". But this is more of a hunch than something I can point to a pile of reliable sources to back up. If you have sources that suggest they use another name, please share them. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any additional reference to provide at the moment.

On second thought, if these individuals refer to themselves as Tajiks, could we not merge this article with that one?

We can then retitle to Tajiks in China, the way we have other articles featuring ethnic groups in other countries. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. - The use of the term "Tajik" is used differently in the three countries where populations live that we would consider to be Tajik. In Tajikistan, Tajik refers to the majority group and "Pamiri" is used to refer to the Ismaili communities that live in Badakhshan and speak languages that are classified as Pamiri, such as Yazghalami, Shughni, Wakhi. In Afghanistan and China, the term "Pamiri" as an minority group or ethnic group is not used. In Afghanistan, the groups that in Tajikistan are called Pamiri would be called "Tajiks" but they would be recognized as different according to their religion, that is they are Ismaili Shiites. You could also call them Wakhi, Shugni, etc. In Xinjiang in China, the official classification of the people who speak the Pamiri languages of Sarikoli and Wakhi is "Tajik," not Pamiri. So to keep the term "Tajiks in Xinjiang" or to move the page to "Tajiks in China" makes the most sense. David Straub (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  So, to be clear, you oppose the current title "Tajiks of Xinjiang" and the nominator's proposed title of "Chinese Tajiks", but support the alternatives "Tajiks in Xinjiang" and "Tajiks in China"?

  I actually agree that "Tajiks in China" is better than "Chinese Tajiks", but I am surprised that the "Tajiks in/of Xinjiang" distinction bothers you. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Yue and @FOARP: It looks like Leon and David both support "Tajiks in China" as a better alternative title than "Chinese Tajiks". Are you two also okay with "Tajiks in China"? If so, we might actually have a consensus. Yue, I think this is basically what you are going for. FOARP, this might address your concerns about a tone of nationalist ownership. Toadspike [Talk] 09:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I oppose using the name "Chinese Tajiks" or calling them Pamiris. I think keeping the article at "Tajiks in Xinjiang" is not a problem, since technically that is geographically correct. I think it makes more sense to name the article "Tajiks in China," since the Tajiks are one of 56 official nationalities in the People's Republic of China. David Straub (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @David Straub and Toadspike: I support the proposal to move this article to "Tajiks in China" and changing mentions of "Chinese Tajiks" in this article to "Tajiks". Yue🌙 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for enlightening me; I was unaware of this distinction. I'm pleased we have reached a consensus with this new title, "Tajiks in China." LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.