Talk:Persian language/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox: Language family

Any reason for this edit? Based on what? New linguistic data/classifications? New Wikipedia rules? Simplification? No reason/edit summary, So I'll restore classification and language family data (like this revision and previous revisions). Zheek (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's common to omit intermediate nodes when they're subject to likely revision, but that's not the case here. — kwami (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

How many native speakers?

The text of the article states that Persian has "ca. 110 million native speakers, holding official status respectively in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan". However, in the infobox it is stated that the 110 million figure is the total number of speakers, and the number of native speakers is ca. 60 million. Can anyone clear this up? 24.235.188.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Persian language map

In the map showing the extent of the Persian language, why is there nothing being shown for the north western, and south eastern portions of the country? There are large populations in these parts and I know that they do speak Farsi (i.e. Tabriz). Temet Nosce (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Farsi/Parsi

Mitrakana is trying to push "Parsi" as the only name in Persian. That seems to be pretty clearly not true. Is there a political angle here? Persian WP calls it "Farsi", and not until the 2nd paragraph do they mention that فارسی را پارسی نیز می‌گویند. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, You don't have to put in wrong information to the world if you don't know anything about the language (yes, anything.) I've entered the standard translation of "Persian" in the Persian language. And that's "Parsi" NOT Farsi. The word "Farsi" is what the language is known to the locals, but not by academicians and linguists. Persian is derived from the Latin Persianus, itself drawing on the Greek Persis. The French call it Persane, the Germans use Persisch, the Italians Persiano, the Russians Persiski, the Swedes Persiska, and the Persians call the language "Parsi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrakana (talk • contribs)

Huh? You are conceding that "Farsi" is what the language is known "to the locals", i.e. presumably in Persian itself – but that is exactly what the translation in the lead is meant to convey. Or are you claiming that Persian academics and linguists, in Persian, preferably call it "Parsi", while "Farsi" is only used in some more colloquial register? I wouldn't know, but it hardly sounds plausible. For instance, this [1] reliable English academic work on Persian grammar cites multiple native Persian-language academic works on Persian linguistics in its reference list, giving their original Persian language titles, and they all seem to contain "Farsi", not "Parsi". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, What the locals of a geographical region perceive their language does not necessarily make it literally correct. For example, Tajiks call the language they speak "Tajiki" and Afghans know their corresponding language as "Dari", however these two labels are both classified by linguists the same language: Persian. Wikipedia content are supposed to be based on academic definitions and not colloquial. This is not Urban Dictionary. I think we can both agree that the majority of Iranians call their language "Farsi" in Persian, while many, who are aware of the Arabic influence in this non-Arabic language, still call it "Parsi". Remember, "Farsi" is the arabized version of "Parsi", the original name of the language which underwent this change due to the fact that Arabs could not, naturally and linguistically, enunciate the /p/ sound. To this day, you will only find "Parsi" (the standard word and not colloquial) in the most prominent Persian literary work, the Shahnameh. Furthermore, since you don't seem to be acquainted with Persian literature, I suggest you head to the official CAIS website to learn what Persian, Parsi, and Farsi mean at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrakana (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) The Shahname is a thousand years old; we are talking what the name in Persian is today. (b) CAIS is not a reliable source. (c) You have admitted that "Farsi" is, indeed, the predominant name used in Persian today. If you try to hide this fact again by removing it from the article, you will be blocked for vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, Firstly, you are in no position to threaten to block me, I can report you for vandalism as well! Secondly, why do you try so hard to hide Parsi? Can you answer? (Mitrakana (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Firstly, I'm not Kwamikagami, I'm somebody else. Secondly, yes, I am in a position to block you, because I am an administrator and you are behaving disruptively. Third, yes, you can try reporting me for vandalism, but you won't achieve much with that, because everybody can see I am not vandalizing. Fourth, nobody except you is trying to "hide" anything here. The variant name "Parsi" is still there, prominently displayed both in the infobox and in the "name" section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop putting that silly @ at the front of messages - this is a serious minded website, not for bird brains. Just to endorse Fut.Perf's message: you are in danger of being blocked for disruption by me of Fut.Perf. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Well, to be fair, the "@" is the least of our concerns here. I've seen a lot of reasonably non-birdbrained wikipedians use it, although it was probably not particularly useful in this thread. As long as there were only two people in it. You, on the other hand, might reasonably have used it to clarify it wasn't me you were yelling at. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@the person who likes to boss people around, I just sent an email to Wiki's real owners asking them to deal with bullies on this page. Good luck with that one.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise, why did you delete the Claudia Lynx article? [not signed]

Actually, I'm quite interested in the difference between 'Farsi' and 'Parsi'. I'm imagining that 'Farsi' is the Arabic form, due to the fact that Arabic doesn't have a /p/, and that 'Parsi' might be a nationalistic revival of the original Persian. There is no such distinction in English, or course, where 'Parsi' only refers to the religion, but it would be interesting to have an account of what's going on in Persian. I see that WP-fa uses both, but can't make sense of why, unless perhaps 'Parsi' is used for a narrower geographic range of Pars Province? I've separated the two forms in the regional section, and tagged 'Parsi' for clarification. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@ last person, yes, you are correct, "Parsi" refers to the ethnic group which evaded the Arab/Islamic invasion and fled to India. Furthermore, these are the people who remain predominantly Zoroastrian, in India. Secondly, in the Persian language, people refer to the language as Farsi, with an "F", though most recognize that it used to be referred to as "Parsi". This shift from P to F can also be seen in Palestine Vs. Felestine and the old word for elephant in Farsi which used to be called "Pil" but is now called "Fil".Temet Nosce (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More of the same

There are repeatedly some users who come here to change Farsi to Parsi. As Kwami said, there is probably a political dimension to this. On one level, I might have some sympathy with that political view that stresses the original Persian form. That is, however, very much besides the point. The only relevant thing here is what the language is usually called in English today, as this is English Wikipedia. As can be seen from any standard academic work on the Iranian languages, the name in English of this language is Persian and Farsi.Jeppiz (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Both names (Farsi and Parsi) are common, but Farsi is more common in other languages like English and academic sources. Also Parsi is covered enough on this article, so changing/replacing a more common name like "Farsi" to/with a less common name like "Parsi" is incorrect. If it's necessary to mention more info about Parsi, IPs and other editors can add sourced content about it. Zheek (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

external link deleted as link spam

I added a link for learnin Persian twice (http://www.persiandee.com) but it was deleted as link spam. I don't want to insist but I really don't understand why it is considered a link spam. Actually I'm quite sure it is more useful than the links that are already there!Mmahdavim (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's pure promotion. The purpose of the article is to inform people about the Persian language, not to advertise places to learn it. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's non-profit. I think the external links part can (and should) contain sources like that. Actually it already has a couple of them. Moreover, many articles like this one have similar links in the "external links" section. Are you saying they should all be removed? Please explain why you insist on removing just this particular link and leaving the rest there. Is it just because I came here merely with the purpose of putting this link and adding nothing else to the article? Mmahdavim (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Farsi

Should the article not begin "Persian or Farsi…"? The two seem to be used with roughly equal frequency in English. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say so, but we've had some recent edit warring over the name. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

'Farsi' is the standard term used in the UK, both by the media and the general public, and 'Persian' is seen as archaic (like referring to Beijing as Peking). I'm not Iranian though, and maybe there's some political/cultural significance here which I'm missing. --Ef80 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was personally surprised when I checked this just now to discover that we use 'Persian language' rather than 'Farsi language'. Ef80 testifies that in the UK it is the standard term, and I think the same is true for the US. We should have a longer discussion of it. I see some of the discussion up above is about 'Farsi' versus 'Parsi' in the local, but that's not really relevant to English Wikipedia, which should use the most common term in English, and I think that is Farsi. To me, as to Ef80, "Persian" sounds archaic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The two terms do not denote the same thing—the situation is somewhat analogous to current usage of Britain and England by those from England and abroad. Persian denotes a particular Southwest Iranian (in the linguistic sense) language that is mutually intelligible in much of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan that is derived from Early New Persian. Farsi denotes the variety of Persian that is spoken in Iran. Hence Farsi is often referred to as Iranian (in the geopolitical sense) Persian. Cf. this article by a well-respected linguist. This article discusses Persian, in the broad sense, since almost everything about the language is common throughout the three major varieties. The aspects of the language that are unique to a given variety (mostly phonological, like varieties of English) are discussed in their respective specific articles. The etymology section is the result of a decade of back-and-forth discussion, edits, reverts, and compromises on this subject that have tired out many people. –jonsafari (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Diacritic

For some reason, whenever a diacritic is mentioned, the Arabic term is used. Although we certainly use variations of Arabic terms (dhamma becomes zamme, kasra becomes kasre, etc.) we more commonly use the Persian names for the diacritics ( zabar بَ, pish بُ and zir بِ). I think this article should reflect this terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.102.195 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

dictionary link deleted, reason: "we don't need links to dictionaries)"

I've added link to [2], revision 598620064, which is the biggest Persian-English dictionary available online for free. I don't agree that there is no place for linking to the dictionary from the wikipedia page, but this is arguable. However this argument is absolutely not valid while there are two links to dictionaries already, while both of them are smaller and have less features. Maybe we remove them and add one link to better dictionary? --89.67.106.59 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Because that external link (your dictionary link) is unnecessary. External links section is not a "link-farm". Zyma (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed it should not be a link farm. But when I need a good online dictionary for a language, I check the WP article to see if they list one. This is one of the principal reasons I look up a language. Yes, there shouldn't be 20 of them, but one or two of the best is IMO very worthwhile. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say we don't need dic on language articles. But most of them are spam/ad-type/promotional links. If you know a non-commercial online English-to-Persian or Persian-to-English dictionary, it's good a add its link. Zyma (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

further reading

Rajmaan (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Influences: Loanwords from Sogdian

I think the "Sogdian loanwords in Persian" should be mentioned in the "Influences" section. Please see: SOGDIAN LANGUAGE i. Loanwords in Persian – Encyclopædia Iranica. --Zyma (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Agglutination

Persian is not an Agglutinative language, as this article claims. Indo-European languages are not agglutinative. They may use, to some degree, agglutinative aspects (as Persian does), but - by definition - Persian is not agglutinative. The sources used to support this claim are either not used properly or they represent minority oppinions and not the mainstream. --Lysozym (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tajik text?

In the section "Examples", we have the sentence "Please note that the Tajik text is different from that of the Iranian Persian." Can someone please verify whether this is correct? (An editor had added a sentence asserting that the text is actually the same; in that case, the sentence asserting a difference should be removed.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User Negahbaan has kindly confirmed that the text is the same, and so I have removed the erroneous sentence. --JBL (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Spread of Persian in Central Asia

http://books.google.com/books?id=I3mVUEzm8xMC&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qcPZ1k65pqkC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3coojMwTKU8C&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity parameter?

Anonymous editor (IP) added the "ethnicity" parameter to infobox. diff Is it necessary? --Zyma (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

SIL macrolangauge

According to SIL, Persian macrolanguage includes only 2 languages. So other languages which are not belonged should be removed for consistency. We should wait until SIL update their data. --Octra Bond (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

| lc3=tgk  |ld3=[[Tajik language|Tajik]]<!--This and the following codes aren't part of the macrolanguage per SIL-->
| lc4=aiq  |ld4=[[Aimaq language|Aimaq]]
| lc5=bhh  |ld5=[[Bukhori language|Bukharic]]
| lc7=haz  |ld7=[[Hazaragi language|Hazaragi]]
| lc8=jpr  |ld8=[[Dzhidi language|Dzhidi]]
| lc9=phv  |ld9=[[Pahlavani language|Pahlavani]]
| lc10=deh |ld10=[[Dehwari language|Dehwari]]
| lc11=jdt |ld11=[[Juhuri language|Juhuri]]
| lc12=ttt |ld12=[[Tat language (Caucasus)|Caucasian Tat]]

Where does the infobox state that it only should list SIL Macrolanguages? Just lump all of it IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• What about this [3] archiveurl? Also, why we ignore all other sources and only consider SIL? For example, Tajiki is an obvious dialect/variety of Persian. How SIL guys ignored linguistic data/facts and separated it from other Persian dialects (Dari and Iranian)? Same for the other ones. See their articles and cited sources how linguistic classified all of them as Persian varieties/dialects. --Zyma (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Ethnologue has traditionally been our source of last resort, so I agree with Zyma that we should not rely exclusively on SIL, but consider others and give priority to more specialised sources (such as Iranica or Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not following Ethnologue. That's why we include all those ISO languages which are not part of ISO Persian. If we have good (rather than just convenient) sources that additional varieties should be included, by all means let's include them. And if I got some wrong (assuming I'm the one responsible), by all means let's remove them. Let's just be sure that they have their own articles (or are merged into another language) and are listed appropriately in the superior clade so that our readers can find them.

As to Octa's original question, we're not following Ethnologue, but Glottolog. Ethnologue and ISO are not reliable sources. The reason we depend on them so heavily is that they're very convenient, and when we went through and made sure we had articles or redirects for all ISO codes, Ethnologue was generally the only source we used. But when more reliable sources, such as specialist literature, disagrees, we should follow. That's more difficult, of course: we need to decide which source to use, or if we create an amalgam of several, as opposed to the mindless regurgitation of whatever Ethnologue says. That can result in cherry-picking, POV edits, nationalism and partisanships -- in other words, actual work. But if we have the people willing to do that work, let them go for it.

Currently, inclusion in this article is decided by what Glottolog includes under its "Farsic-Caucasian Tat" node (We could narrow it down to their "Farsic" node by removing Tat, but can't narrow it down any further based on that source without dividing up Western Persian from Tajik.) Glottolog is based on Schmitt (2000), who the editors determined was the best source for classification. If we want to use a different classification, we should have reason to believe our judgement is better than that of the linguists at Glottolog. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But the language names used by Schmitt's subclassification are uncommon. For example, he uses [Farsic] instead of Persian. When he uses Farsic and Farsi instead of Persian, why he didn't call Old Persian as Old Farsi too? Any reason to call some varieties Farsi and the others Persian? I don't see any valid point in using this name "Farsic". This is the reason why I say we shouldn't ignore other sources and we just represent SIL/Ethnologue or Glottolog for language families and classifications. --Zyma (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Zyma has a point, Glottolog has its own quirks and idiosyncrasies (even if they may be inherited from the idiosyncrasies of the sources it uses). Some personal judgment in choice of sources is inevitable. That's what we have expert editors for, after all. Even choosing Glottolog over SIL is ultimately an arbitrary (if informed) decision, not something that can be derived from some Wikipedia rule. We can't do without decisions and choices informed by individual Wikipedians' expertise – as handy as it would be if we could outsource them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Similar to my points, I agree with you. --Zyma (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The editors of Glottolog make up names as they go along, as they consider them to be trivial and not worth fussing over. They are therefore not a RS for naming. They are better than Ethnologue for classification, mutual intelligibility and as a bibliography.

Anyway, no-one said anything about using Glottolog names. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Parsī or Farsī?

This article is well done, for there are no evident historical misunderstandings to be found. Nevertheless, I'd like to add some common misinterpretations concerning the Arabs' “conquest” of the ancient Sasanian Empire, mostly expressed by Iranian and other nationalists who had borrowed certain approaches to history, for instance blaming “the Arabs” for everything that went wrong in that area.

It seems to be an old saying that “the Arabs”, especially their script, do not own the sound “p”, and therefore, after the so-called “conquest” of the Sasanian Empire, “they” changed all former Persian names with a “p” into “f”. So, they assume, it became Farsī (فارسي) instead of Pārsī (پارسي) and Iṣfahān instead of Ispahān, for instance. But there is this question: Why have some words survived until today, like pedar (پدر), panǧ (پنج), or paḏīroftan (پذيرفتن)? Until now I couldn't find any answer.

In Arabic you still find, for instance, the word Iṣbahān (اصبهان) which means that “the Arabs” changed the p-sound into a b-sound, as well. Iṣbahān, for instance, is the name for a Moroccan/Andalusian musical mode (ṭab‘/طبع), too. And there is this famous medieval musician and musicologist called al-Iṣbahānī (also al-Iṣfahānī (see both forms in this article!)

My supposition is based on the fact that at that period many languages were in a state of sound-changing. There are examples of Indo-European languages like Father, in Icelandic Fadhir, in German Vater (pronounced “Fater”). But all of these words correspond with Latin pater, Greek patéras, Sanskrit pitar, and last but not least Persian pedar. Similarly there is the word for five (in English), fünf (in German), pet (in Eastern European languages), pente (in Greek), and last but not least panǧ in Persian. All these examples show very easily how the f and p sounds are kind of exchangeable. And therefore “the Arabs” cannot be blamed for replacing the p into f.

Not to forget: “The Arabs” were just a handful of beduines in “conquering” a huge empire! This empire was extremely weakened by itself, for there were the uprisings of several social movements against the strict Zoroastrian and political hierarchy in the 5th and 6th century CE (the Mazdaki movement, for instance), and, by the way, there were these permanent wars with the Eastern Roman Empire. All of these elements were the real cause of the Sasanian Empire's collapse. “The Arabs” just took advantage of the entire situation.

Last but not least: The Arab script is the developped derivation of the old Aramaic script which was the official script in the Sasanian period. Therefore the orthography is nearly the same.--Imruz (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The changing of the Persian letter "P" into either "B" or "F" can be attributed to the Arab conquests of Persia. One should not necessarily take offense to this, rather, it is to educate as to why certain names are the way they are, and why there is "Farsi" and "Parsi". As is the nature of Wikipedia, if one finds something to be inaccurate, one is free to edit it with their factual input. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. With peace. Negahbaan (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This articles uses Farsi as that is by far the more common usage in both Persian and in English, and we go by common usage.Jeppiz (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we take into consideration that the name of the language in Persian (not Arabic) started with either p or f in different historical stages of the Persian language alone? 88.103.175.144 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not. We don't call English "Ænglisc" either. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just meant that in the article it is not explained what the Persian name for the Persian alnguage was in different stages of the language. That is what I meant. Can someone explain? 2A00:1028:919E:BE42:1DCC:D52F:B889:482C (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you. Yes, if we can find a good reliable source that explains the change, I'm sure it could be integrated. Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Map

about Persian Language Location Map, the Previous map had some mistakes. for example Sonqor Satar Sahneh Kangavar Harsin Bisotun Ilam and Kamyaran in Iran and some parts of Diyala Governorate in Iraq considered as Persian speaking cities but it's not true. I replaced it with another map and I corrected the new one.see the new one --– Hossein Iran « talk » 21:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your map may be a more accurate version than current image, but both maps are not based on reliable sources. They're just personal works without any sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I added sources. see again please --– Hossein Iran « talk » 13:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hosseiniran:, I just checked your English sources; so far, I can't see anything that backs up your claims. Interestingly, I just noticed the map in general; how come Northeastern Azerbaijan and some minor areas in southern Dagestan are omitted on it, btw? Plenty of (English) sources to be found regarding that. Anyhow, I'd say. ask on Wikimedia for the current map to be unlocked, and then actually fix it per the reliable sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: i cleaned some of non Persian speaking cities which based on sources their language are not Persian. --– Hossein Iran « talk » 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Parsi-Farsi, when first attested in English

According to the easily available Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary, the name Farsi for the language was first attested in 1878, while the term Parsi for the religious group, in 1583. The latter word even antedates this, to as old as 1398, according to the OED1, though back then it seemed to mean simply Persian (whether Zoroastrian or not). However, an anonymous editor added this, stating other dates and citing the current online edition of OED, which unfortunately cannot be so easily checked. Could anybody check the OED, or better still, cite some portion of either the Farsi or Parsi articles?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sassanian Middle Persian court language called Dari

Sassanian spoke Middle Persian language which is ancestor to western persian due to the proximity of the region. This statement that Middle Persian was called Dari is completely absurd .

similarly these statements "The first poems of the Persian language, a language historically called Dari, emerged in Afghanistan." is also absurd as the next line states ruduki as the persian poet who was born in present Tajikistan not Afghanistan. There was no Dari or Tajiki mentioned by Ruduki himself, samanids themselves claimed descent from Sassanians which claimed descent from the first persian empire. Some afghan nationalists are trying to edit war I suppose.

-I think you don't know the proper history of the Persian language. Zaban Darbari, shortened to "Dari" is correct as written in article currently, please read source materials before trying to instigate something out of a complete non-issue. 73.85.205.80 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Remember there is only reference to either parthian or parsi which is a southwestern dielect and originated in fars , thats why name is farsi , farsi was language of priests and senior people while darbary people included people from east iran too that spoke a different dielect , that was called darbary language but not dari. If a language originated in fars and then dehqan samanid who claims descent from persian empire that is parsik empire so he introduced persisnn which was adopted by eastern iranians and gave rise to dari later . No mention of dari by sasanids neither by samanids etc .

@Saladin1987: Why you don't sign your comments? Read DARĪ at Encyclopaedia Iranica. And don't change/remove the sourced content. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Persian, Dari language, Tajik language

There's been some tendentious editing, but also an issue with the name. Hopefully the forms "Western Persian or 'Farsi' ... Dari ... Tajiki" are not objectionable to any non-brigading editor. Now "WP or Farsi" is pretty straightforward, and Dari is doubled apparently to parallel the other two languages. As for Tajik language and Tajiki, they are actually different names; you can say "Tajiki", but saying "Tajik" alone is like saying "speak *Arab". You have to either add the ezāfe or a term like "language" after it. Likely Dari was doubled as a parallelism to match the other two dialect names, but I think we should dispense with them except for "WP or 'Farsi'". Ogress 03:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me (though I don't know what "brigading" is supposed to mean :p ). --JBL (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem editor spamming us with IP-hopping reverts with zero attempt to reply to anyone or to even use the edit summaries, who I just reverted again. Ogress 22:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what on earth does "brigading" mean? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC))

Spoken

Out of sheer WP:GOODFAITH, I will start this talk page section, even though the burden (WP:BRD) lays on the shoulders of 75.130.240.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• On 17 February 2018, IP "75.130.240.55" made this edit. No edit summary used.

• On 28 February 2018, instead of opening a talk page section or sending me a personal message on my talk page, IP "75.130.240.55" reverted it back to his own revision.[4]

• A few hours later, IP "75.130.240.55" reverted once again.[5]

The edit warring and good-faith intentions of Mr. IP aside, I'm not denying that the Persian language in relation to historic Persian-speaking cities like Bukhara/Samarqand is an important fact. However, the long-standing revision of the lede, only mentioned those countries in which Persian (or some variant/sort of Persian) is the official language (or co-official language). Persian or any variant/dialect of it, is not an official language in Uzbekistan, nor is it a "primary language" if taking the country as a whole.

Going by the same logic of "IP 75.130.240.55", which basically means that "important" Persian-speaking cities/towns/regions in nowadays largely non-Persian speaking countries should be added to the lede, southern Dagestan and northern Republic of Azerbaijan should be added as well. After all, some villages/towns in those areas remain "primarily Persian speaking" in the 21th century (Lahıc, Ismailli, comes to mind). In the past, these areas (Shirvan/Arran, southern Dagestan) were also of significant importance vis-a-vis the Persian language; however nowadays, similar to Uzbekistan, the Persian is no longer a primary/official language there, if taking the area/country/territory as a whole. Though... actually, Tat is an official language in Dagestan. Anyways, you get what I mean.

Per WP:UNDUE weight, and per the long-standing revision, specific mention of Bukhara/Samarqand (or similarly, Dagestan/Azerbaijan Republic) should be left out out of the lede. Perhaps in the future, when the overal quality of this article is raised, we can revise the lede and include a small sentence about the fact that Persian is still spoken in historically Persian speaking areas/cities (i.e. Bukhara, southern Dagestan, Shirvan/Arran/Republic of Azerbaijan, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi there, I am not a regular contributor here, thank you for directing me to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.240.55 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Persian-speakers still form a majority among the native inhabitants of Samarqand and Bukhara, and these two cities are considered part of the native distribution of the modern Persian language (as you alluded to, these regions have been continuously Persian speaking since the Samanid period). The Persian language remains florid in the form of local music, newspapers (Овози Тоҷик "Tajik Voice") radio and television programs (see Шоми Самарканд) in spite of a recent influx of Uzbek-speaking newcomers. Samarqand is a publishing center for Tajik-language literature written by local authors, and both cities are home to a number of Tajik-language primary schools. The Uzbek variety spoken as a second language by inhabitants of Samarqand and Bukhara is characteristically Persianized is accent and prosody, and national Uzbek musicians often sing Persian-language songs specifically dedicated to their fans in Samarqand and Bukhara. Uzbeks refer to these local Persian dialects as "Bukhorocha" and "Samarqandcha", although "Tojikcha" or "Forscha" are also used. :By comparison, Uzbek musicians also sing Khorezmian Turkish (Khorazmcha) songs dedicated to their fans in Khorezm, reflecting the local language spoken in that region. Persian (Tajik) is the local language of Samarqand and Bukhara.

To the point about official status, the sentence in question indicates areas wherein Persian is spoken as a primary language regardless of political status. Kurmanji Kurdish is spoken primarily in Turkey and Syria yet does not hold official status in those countries. Nonetheless, Kurdish speakers form a majority in the city of Diyarbakir (known to them as Amed) and indeed this city is considered a center for the Kurdish language. We are correct in stating "Kurdish is spoken primarily in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria", despite not forming a majority among the general population nor holding official status. The same can be said for hundreds of other languages, such as Azerbaijani which is spoken primarily in Azerbaijan and Iran (Iran is home to more native speakers than Azerbaijan), yet holds no official status in the latter. As such, we ought to consider Samarqand and Bukhara as part of the native distribution of the modern Persian language, in addition to being historically celebrated centers of Persian civilization. Thank you.

75.130.240.55 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for helping me LouisAragon, I am not proficient with the correct formatting nor the rules about holding these discussions, please pardon me as it is difficult to navigate. I appreciate your follow-up.

As I mentioned in my post, which I hope will be considered more closely, Persian is STILL in 2018 the primary spoken language of the native Muslims and Jewish inhabitants of Bukhara and Samarqand (it's often called Bukhorocha and Samarqandcha in Uzbek, but also Tojikcha "Tajik" and Forscha "Persian"), which becomes readily apparent to any outsiders who travel there in 2018, but as I tried to illustrate with several examples, this is a well-known fact among Uzbeks and Tajiks alike.

The Persian language remains florid in the form of local Persian-language music production (see youtube clips of Shahzod Azimov, Ortiq Nuriyev, Sherzod Uzoqov, Rohila Olmasova, Safiya Saftarova to name of few, not to mention the classical Jewish musicians Muhabbat Shamayeva, Ezro Malakov and Ezra Katayev all from Bukhara; all of these artists are native Persian-speakers), Persian-language newspapers (such as the famous Овози Тоҷик "Tajik Voice") Persian-language radio and television programs (kindly see clips of Шоми Самарканд "Shomi Samarqand", I tried to provide a youtube link but it did not allow me), and Persian-language primary schools for the children of Samarqand and Bukhara. Samarqand is a publishing center for Tajik-language literature written by local authors and poets (such as Muayanna Khujaeva, Normurod Karimzoda, Asliddin Qamarzoda.) I also pointed out that national Uzbek musicians from other regions of the country who are non-Persian speakers continue to record and dedicate Persian-language songs for their fans in Samarqand and Bukhara, because that is the local language in those regions the same way Khorezmian Turkish is the local language in Khorezm. These two cities are very much part of the modern distribution of Persian, truthfully I do not entirely understand the dispute about this nor the necessity to allude to their preeminent roles during the Samanid and Timurid periods in this discussion. They are still natively and majority Tajik-speaking in 2018, and prolifically so, and must be included in any synopsis of the native distribution of Persian today.

Perhaps it is prudent to remember here that the Persian language in Samarqand and Bukhara has its roots in the remote past, likely the Samanid period. The older generations in those cities have only imperfect command of Uzbek by Tashkent standards, as they preferably learned Russian in the Soviet period, and speak it in a characteristically Persianized manner. Native Uzbek-speakers are newcomers in recent years to those cities (particularly post-1991) and represent the newest element in the local population, and they are viewed as such and remain a minority by any metric.

Thank you, although I must respectfully disagree with the analogy that was provided, as to my knowledge Persian was never spoken in great numbers by natives of Dagestan, nor Azerbaijan (perhaps you are referring to the Old Azari language, which was a sister of but not akin to Persian and went extinct in the medieval period in favor of the modern Azerbaijani Turkish language.) Similarly, it is true that modern Tat is an Iranian language, i.e. it is a relative of Persian as Spanish is to Catalan, but it is not Persian. Instead, I would like to refer back to my examples of Kurdish and Azerbaijani Turkish, and add to it the example of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic which is distributed similarly to Kurdish but holds no official status in any political sense. We would still be correct in stating that "Neo-Aramaic is primarily spoken in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey." I see this as a quite simple matter, particularly because the sentence in question only deals with the distribution of modern Persian where it serves a primary language regardless of official status.

In my view, it would be (unintentionally) deceitful and incomplete not to include Samarqand and Bukhara in such a synopsis, and would in the least be an injustice to the prolific Persian-language scene in 2018 in Samarqand and Bukhara. Special thanks again to LouisAragon. 75.130.240.55 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much for your elaborate reply. Few things;

Old Azari was primarily spoken in historic Azerbaijan (i.e. Iranian Azerbaijan), not really in the contemporary Azerbaijan Republic (other than in some southern parts). Tat Persian is not mutually intelligble with Persian proper, but its speakers are still the descendants of the same ethnic Persians who inhabited the area since ancient times. Contemporary Tat language is essentially recognized as a form of Persian.

Arran/Shirvan (the pre-1918 names of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic) and southern Dagestan (Derbent) were major bastions of the Persian language for thousands of years. From the Achaemenid/Sasanian era, up to contemporary times (i.e. Russian conquest), these areas were considered to be inseparable parts of Iran. Medieval authors and travellers record en masse that the Persian language predominated in these areas (Al-Istakhri, etc). These regions were the same areas that gave birth to some of the most famous Persian figures, such as Nizami Ganjavi and Khaqani. Until the late 19th century, the language remained of major significance in these regions. In fact, according to a late 19th century Russian census of the Dagestan Oblast, more than 50% of Derbents population was still of Persian descent.[6]

The only difference between Arran/Shirvan/Southern Daghestan on one hand and Bukhara/Samarqand on the other, is that Bukhara/Samarqand remains majorly Persian speaking, whereas most Persian-speakers in Arran/Shirvan/Dagestan either migrated to Iran proper (especially after 1813/1828) or were assimilated into the nearby Turkic/Lezgin/Avar (etc.) population. Of course that difference on itself is very important, but does it merit inclusion in the current lede?

I still think its all WP:UNDUE weight per the current (i.e. longstanding) revision of the lede. I think in the future, when people are going to raise the article quality (i.e. "GA-quality"), it should definitely include some imformation about these isolated Persian-speaking enclaves in historically Persian-speaking lands. As well as some information on areas were the language was used/predominated since ancient times, but where it simply "died out" due to conquests/policies/assimilation, etc.

I'd like to hear the opinion of others on this as well. If there are more who are convinced that its all a real must-have for the article, then I won't object, naturally. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Historical stuff should go to their own sections. I don't see anything about usage of Persian in current Bukhara and Samarkand. Do people still speak Persian in those cities? Any source? If Persian (or Tajik) has no official or local status in Uzbekistan, then we can't give Bukhara and Smarkand same weight like the other mentioned countries and regions. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, and thank you LouisAragon for the thoughtful and insightful discussion on other matters. I believe it does merit inclusion in the current lede. As of 2018, Persian (Tajik) is indeed the primary language spoken in Samarqand and Bukhara and is prolific there...this is frankly common knowledge. It seems that maybe other users are not reading the bits that I am writing, I spent a good deal of time composing this information and providing accessible examples so please do consider what I have presented to you in coming to a decision on this matter. Please type in Шоми Самарканд on youtube to see clips of local Persian-language television programs based in Samarqand featuring local Persian language musicians, poets and authors. To avoid redundancy I will not repeat what else I have already written, please see my earlier posts for a description of the current status of Persian in Samarqand and Bukhara. I will however reiterate that in the article the sentence in question does not deal with the official status of the Persian language, it is merely describing the native distribution of the language in 2018 across modern political borders. Simply because a language does not currently enjoy the privilege of political recognition in a post-Soviet state does not erase its 1,000 years of existence and prominence there. Many thanks. 75.130.240.55 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Persian language is not only spoken in Azerbaijan historically. Who wants to apply for master degree for language or history in Azerbaijan should give Arabic or Persian language exam.--Abutalub (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I saw this: Uzbekistan#Languages and it seems people still use Persian in those cities. Let me ping other editors. @Florian Blaschke, Iryna Harpy, and Lingveno: Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wario-Man, thanks for pinging me. Yes, people still speak Persian in those cities, not only as a second language, but what I found out is that for many people in Samarkand and Bukhara it is the first language. Most of the people in Samarkand do speak Persian and when trying to speak Uzbek with them, they start bringing a lot of Persian words. It does not only apply to Samarkand and Bukhara, but also in many smaller towns in the Surxondaryo Region. So, I would strongly suggest keeping that. --Lingveno (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My concern: We can keep them in the lead section, but I think clarification is necessary. Because unlike Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan, it's not an official language in Uzbekistan nor a recognized regional language (Am I wrong? because I don't see any info in Uzbekistan country infobox). It should be clear and neutral for our readers. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of Nastaliq Script

This page is filled with Nastaliq instead of standard script. Yes it is very pretty and is good for the banner at the top, but Nastaliq is literally never used outside of calligraphy and writing classical style poetry. It's also much harder to read without zooming in. I was wondering if there was any reason why this page doesn't use the standard script for the majority of the Persian words in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1418:4413:7194:7AE2:2B59:7176 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree; removed.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Farsi/Parsi, for the n-th time

I'm going to revert, once more, the change edit-warred into this page by Malekfarugh (talk · contribs) [7][8][9], as a rather blatant act of source falsification.

This is yet another editor trying to gloss over the fact that this language is also referred to as Farsi in English, making it sound as if Farsi was exclusively used "locally", i.e. in Persian itself. The source supports the exact opposite: the author, Kamran Talattof, explicitly acknowledges that Farsi "has become the standard word used by many English and non-English speakers to refer to modern Persian", and that "[s]ome Iranian authorities have actually encouraged this and have engaged in a systematic attempt to change the name of the language in the international communities to Farsi". Sure, he then goes on to argue why he personally considers that choice to be unfortunate. But while that's a respectable opinion by a respectable academic, it is of course quite irrelevant to the factual situation that Wikipedia needs to report on.

The editor has also again tried to further downplay the role of the name "Farsi" by juxtaposing it with "Parsi", making it appear as if it were just one among several local alternatives. The source by Talattof says absolutely nothing to that effect; it mentions "Parsi" only once as the historical etymon of "Farsi", but not as a living present-day synonym, and otherwise leaves no doubt that "Farsi" is not just a native name, but the native name in Persian. It's curious to see how dozens of editors have been pushing "Parsi" into this article over the years, without any of them ever making any serious attempt to document with proper sources where and by whom it is actually used.

Incidentally, Malekfarough has also repeatedly messed up the citation itself, first giving a false name for its author, and then mixing up two different source websites in one footnote. Neither of them ("iranian.com" and some private Iranian club at a US university) are reliable sources by any stretch. Since the actual author is a reputable academic expert, we could probably invoke the exception under WP:RSSELF here, but it would still be preferable to cite his actual book publications instead ("Replacing Persian with Farsi: what's in a name", in: Persian Language, Literature and Culture: New Leaves, Fresh Looks, ed. Kamran Talatoff, Routledge 2015, is a fine source for this discussion. No problem citing that, if and when we have something to say here that it actually serves to support.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Talattof article was written in late 1990s. After that many noticed their mistake in calling Persian, "Farsi" in English (after 1980) and now once again the official term everywhere is Persian: Dictionaries, Iran's state news agencies, EU-based Persian media, universities, etc. In regard of Farsi/Parsi issue, many Persian articles now uses PARSI in their texts too. It is not something just historical. But as you can not read Persian text you can not check. Thanks.--Malekfarugh (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your newest edits [10][11] are still unacceptable, as is your argumentation here. Your claim that the Talattof article is outdated is baseless – as I just said, Talattof published an actual book chapter on the same topic only in 2015, and he is still describing the exact same situation there (and if you thought it was outdated, why did you cite it in the first place?!) "Farsi" still remains a frequently used and entirely acceptable name in the English speech community, and whether you (or Talattof, or the Persian Language Academy) like that or not, is entirely immaterial to the way our lede is going to be worded. Frequently used synonyms go in the lead sentence of Wikipedia articles, and they go there without POV editorializing disparaging them. This whole idea of giving emphasis to the POV disagreement over this term is giving entirely undue weight to a fringe issue – unless you can show that there is a vastly larger body of serious academic coverage of that dispute than you've shown so far, even mentioning it in the lead section is undue, let alone endorsing one opinion as you are trying to do. There are many, many interesting points to be made about this great beautiful language that are of infinitely higher importance and interest to our readers and would have a much higher priority to be mentioned within the confined space of the lead paragraphs than this obscure ideological quibble over terminology. Needless to say, the two additional webpages you've added links to both fail WP:RS. And the sentence you added, about that name having "no legal validity" is plain nonsensical – what on earth would it even mean for a language name to have "legal validity"? The English speech community isn't subject to somebody else's legislation regarding what it chooses to call things.

As for "Parsi", you still haven't produced even a single relevant source and have only restated your personal assertion. The matter is not whether I can go and check what people use; the question is whether you can produce reliable, secondary sources from the published academic literature describing that usage. You haven't, so it goes out again. And you'd better stop edit-warring about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the following sentence, in the current version, is misleading: "Since the latter decades of the 20th century, for political reasons, in English, Farsi has become the name of the Persian language as it is spoken in Iran." This makes it sound as if "Farsi" is currently the usual name in English; the writer also gives no reference for this assertion. In fact, although it is true that some British and American writers refer to the language as used in Iran as "Farsi", yet it seems that it is still much more common to refer to it as "Persian". For example, if we put the phrases "Farsi language" and "Persian language" into Google ngrams, the latter is 20x as common. (Admittedly Google ngrams are not always 100% reliable, but they perhaps give some idea of the relative frequency.) It appears that "Farsi" is more commonly used by American writers than by British. At any rate this sentence, I would say, needs toning down or rewriting to give a different emphasis. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I find I agree with Kanjuzi's conclusion (tone the sentence down), but only in part with the user's reasoning. I searched for language courses (at colleges across the US, and also at for-pay courses in NYC and Los Angeles). Farsi is used in US English. Persian is used in US English. Farsi/Persian or Persian/Farsi are used side-by side in US English. The handful of college catalogs I saw all used Persian. The private courses in NYC were fairly evenly divided, while in LA there is a clear lean to Farsi. There seem to be thousands of easy sources for each one, and at least dozens of mutually contradictory explanations from Reliable Sources explaining why one is right and the other wrong. Jd2718 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you enter "speak Farsi" and "speak Persian" into ngrams you find that for American books since the 1980s, the two phrases are equally common, but for British books, "speak Persian" is more common. So it is probably true that in the United States "Farsi" has common usage. If you look up books about Persian on Amazon, you find that some call it "Persian" and others call it "Farsi". As you see from the way I have now phrased it, I think I have expressed the situation fairly, with two references for each usage from Iranian writers writing about Persian in English. It would have been possible to put 3 or 4 references on each side, since the two seem equally common. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Could it be that P & F are allophones to native speakers, & that they cannot tell the difference any more than some orientals cannot distinguish l and r? At an oriental restaurant the waiter asked me what kind of lice I wanted! (PeacePeace (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC))

No, not really. P and f are distinguished clearly both in the phonological system (see Persian language#Consonants) and in the spelling system. The relationship between the two is an historical one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has added an excessive number of references to the statement that the language is sometimes known as "Farsi". The point of all these references is unclear. The purpose of a reference at this point in the article is merely to show that some authors prefer the name "Farsi". This is adequately shown by the reference to the two recent grammars which use this name in their title. It does not seem appropriate to conduct a debate about the subject here in the lede through the use of footnotes. If the subject of the name of the language is an important one, it might be appropriate to write a separate paragraph with the title "The name of the language" and put the references there. But merely to cite a book without saying whether it supports one side or the other is not very helpful. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Farsi, not Persian!

There's no such thing as Persian language, its Farsi!!! Stop beeing douches!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Too late! You might as well say there's no such thing as German, only "Deutsch", or there's no such thing as French, only "français". The fact is that in English the name is Persian and has been for centuries. Call it what you like when you are speaking your own language! Kanjuzi (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a troll case.[12][13] --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't discriminate against these people! Calling them trolls is offensive too. Some people just have legit concerns, but can't express them properly. --2001:16B8:2EA9:9800:A0A1:6461:6476:AD0A (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Glottolog

Hi,

The Glottolog link in the infobox leads to "Farsic-Caucasian Tat". It is probably wrong, but I am failing to find what is right. Does anybody have an idea how could this be improved? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

first poetry?

The article states " The first poems of the Persian language, a language historically called Dari, emerged in Afghanistan " - this is technically not true. There was an epic poem written during Sassinid times in Iran, the Ayadgar i Zareran. This is stated in the Persian literature article.50.111.46.18 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

@LouisAragon and Wikaviani: Kindly do not undo my changes but examine them carefully. I have not thrown anything away or deleted any content, merely tidied up badly edited repetitive sections, moved a paragraph, and made the headings more logical.

For example, the previous version – now once again the current version – under the heading "Persian language name in Persian" contains the sentence "In recent decades some authors writing in English have referred to the variety of Persian spoken in Iran as Farsi; although the name Persian is also still widely used" and again "it is sometimes called Afghan Persian in English". These sentences don't belong under that heading since they describe what the language is called in English, not what it is called in Persian. I moved them to the proper place and combined them with similar statements there.

I have combined the section "Varieties" and "Persian Language name in Persian", since they seem to describe exactly the same thing, listing the three main varieties of Persian. It seemed to me that "Varieties" should go early in the article, not after the history of the language, so I moved it.

Why the subheading "Persian language name in Persian" should go under a main heading "Etymology" is unclear, since the paragraph is not about etymology. I deleted "Etymology".

What is wrong with adding a section on Ossetian and other related Iranian languages? – I admit I have confused Tat and Tati, but this could be cleared up, not totally deleted. Indeed it would be useful to have a note distinguishing the two.

Some references, such as Lena Jonson and Foltz, do not appear properly in the footnotes (look at the bottom of the article!): I have corrected them and added the name of Jonson's book. In the reverted version they are incorrect again.

Kindly point to a piece of "longstanding material" that I have deleted! Perhaps you are referring to the paragraph about Xenophon and the Armenians under the heading Old Persian? Here it is: "Xenophon, a Greek general serving in some of the Persian expeditions, describes many aspects of Armenian village life and hospitality in around 401 BC, which is at a time when Old Persian was the only form of Persian used. He relates that the Armenians spoke a language that to his ear sounded like the language of the Persians.(ref)Xenophon. Anabasis. pp. IV.v.2–9.(/ref) – What has that got to do with Old Persian? If you look up the reference given (Anabasis IV.5.2-9), as I did, you will find that it has nothing to do with the Armenians' language, and that neither there nor anywhere else in the Anabasis does Xenophon say that their language resembles Persian. Even if he did, his opinion would be meaningless from a scientific point of view.

Under "Old Persian" it says "Main articles: Old Persian and Persian verbs". "Persian verbs" is completely irrelevant since it says nothing at all about Old Persian, and it is certainly not a "main article". I deleted its mention here. Why restore it?

It seemed to me that when the article said "Old Persian is one of the oldest Indo-European languages which is attested in original texts" that some mention should be made of Avestan also, which is after all another old Iranian language and even older than Old Persian. I added this sentence: "Related to Old Persian, but from a different branch of the Iranian language family, was Avestan, the language of the Zoroastrian liturgical texts." It seems useful. Why delete it?

The fact that according to the OED "Farsi" was first used in English in 1926 seems relevant and interesting. It was in the article already, but hidden behind coding. I have unhidden it. Why not allow it to stand?

I added the date of the Behistun Inscription. You deleted it again. Is it not useful?

I changed "had probably already begun before the 4th century" to "had probably already begun before the 4th century BC", since it was unclear as it stood. Why delete the BC?

I removed illogicalities such as "Currently, Voice of America, BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty use "Persian Service" for their broadcasts in the language. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also includes a Tajik service and an Afghan (Dari) service. This is also the case for the American Association of Teachers of Persian...", which is nonsensical. You have put the illogicalities back. Why?

I added this sentence: "Middle Persian is "essentially, though not in every detail, a later form of the same dialect as Old Persian".(ref)Nicholas Sims-Williams, "The Iranian Languages", in Steever, Sanford (ed.) (1993), The Indo-European Languages, p. 129.(/ref) This seems useful information. Should it not stand?

Now kindly look again at my changes and tell me why any of them should not be made. The disruptive editing, it seems to me, is yours, since you have undone perfectly sound corrections! Kanjuzi (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "What is wrong with adding a section on Ossetian and other related Iranian languages? – I admit I have confused Tat and Tati, but this could be cleared up, not totally deleted. Indeed it would be useful to have a note distinguishing the two."

Its as WP:UNDUE as it gets. People can visit the Iranian languages article with a single button press. This article is about the Persian language, so it should limit itself to information directly related to the language itself.

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Now let's start again. I shall begin with removing the passage about Xenophon, with its spuriously precise reference, in which he says nothing about his impressions of Armenian, which in any case is quite irrelevant. If you have any objections to the changes I make, please don't simply revert them but state your case on this page. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling reversions

@MjolnirPants: I am puzzled that you have reverted some perfectly good edits. Can you explain your reasoning?

Take for example the following passage: "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also includes a Tajik service and an Afghan (Dari) service. This is also the case for the American Association of Teachers of Persian". As it stands, the passage makes it sound as if the American Association of Teachers of Persian has a Tajik Service, which is of course not true. My edit removed this illogicality, but you have put it back. Why?

Next, if you look at note 50 in the current revision ("Persian or Farsi?". Iranian.com. 16 November 1997. Retrieved 23 September 2010."), you will see that it refers to exactly the same article as note 53 ("Kamran Talattof: Persian or Farsi? The debate continues". Iranian.com. 16 December 1997. Retrieved 13 July 2010."). There is absolutely no need to give the same information twice within six lines. I deleted one of the notes. Can you tell me why you thought it necessary to put it back?

I corrected "Ta- lysh" (an obvious mistake caused by copying and pasting a sentence spread over two lines) to "Talysh" (Talysh is correct, as the article Talysh language makes clear). There is no reason to revert it to "Ta- lysh".

I added a helpful note: "(This dialect is not to be confused with the Tati language of northwestern Iran, which is a member of a different branch of the Iranian languages.)" Considering that the article Iranian languages mentions only the Tati dialect of northwestern Iran, not the other Tati dialect mentioned in the article, such a note is necessary. Why delete it?

I changed the heading "Etymology" to "Name of the language", for the simple reason that the section has nothing to do with etymology, but it is about the name of the language. The change seems only sensible. But you have changed it back, without giving a reason.

In the section "Persian language name in English" occurs this sentence: "Native Iranian Persian speakers call it Fārsi." This sentence is ambiguous. If (as it seems) it means that native speakers call it Farsi when speaking Persian, it is out of place here (the same information has already been given in the previous section). If on the other hand it means that native speakers call it Farsi when speaking Persian, the same information is given without ambiguity and with citations further down in this section. Either way the sentence should be removed, as I have done.

You also reverted my colleague's addition of the plosive (IPA) ɢ (which is correct for standard Iranian Persian according to the citations and the article Persian phonology), again without giving a reason. I think it should be added again.

What is going on? If the statement that the name Farsi was first used in English in 1926 needs a citation, only this part had to be removed, not the entire raft of corrections. These excessive reversions seem merely disruptive. Might I request you to consider each edit on its merits, rather than hastily deleting the whole lot in one fell swoop? Kanjuzi (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I came across it while doing recent changes patrolling. It was full of claims that weren't sourced, and it changed the name of the section "etymology" which actually discussed the etymology of the name of the language to the far less encyclopedic "name of the language". This isn't grade school. A reader who needs to look up "etymology" to understand what that section is about just so happens to be on an encyclopedia, where they can do just that. So put some sources in, and name your sections like a grown up and we'll get along famously. I don't know if that was you or the IP, but since you're the one defending them, and you're the one edit warring over it; they're your edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Haven't checked all the other details yet, but as for the section name, I fully support the change to "name of the language". The issue is not whether the term "etymology" will be understood by readers or whether the section actually discusses the etymology of the name; it's the fact that (like very many similar sections in other articles) it does a lot of additional things that simply aren't etymology, such as all the discussion about alternative names and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. Apart from the very first line, which says that Farsi is the Arabic pronunciation of Parsi, the remaining 23 lines are not about etymology at all, so the title is not appropriate. Incidentally, I looked up "Farsi" in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition (1989)), and it appears that it wasn't first used in English in 1926 at all; it merely quotes an encyclopaedia article of that year which says that Farsi is the name used by modern Persians. The first quotation in the OED actually using the name Farsi in English is from 1979: "Farsi translations of British press reports". Kanjuzi (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplication

Now let us look again at the two sections about the three varieties of Persian. I will put them here side by side so that they can be easily compared. One is headed "Persian language name in Persian":

In Persian, the language is known by several names:

• Western Persian, Farsi (فارسی fārsi or زبان فارسی zabān-e fārsi), the Arabic form of Parsi (پارسی pārsi), has been the name used by native speakers until the 20th century. In recent decades some authors writing in English have referred to the variety of Persian spoken in Iran as Farsi; although the name Persian is also still widely used.
• Eastern Persian, Dari (دری darī) or Dari Persian (فارسی دری fārsi-ye dari) was originally a synonym for Farsi but since the latter decades of the 20th century has become the name for the variety of Persian spoken in Afghanistan, where it is one of the two official languages; it is sometimes called Afghan Persian in English.
• Tajiki (тоҷикӣ, تاجیکی tojikī or забони тоҷикӣ / زبان تاجیکی zabon-i tojiki) or форси́и тоҷикӣ́ / forsi-i tojikī, is the variety of Persian spoken in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan by the Tajiks.

The other is labelled "Varieties":

There are three modern varieties of standard Persian:

• Western Persian (Persian, Iranian Persian, or Farsi) is spoken in Iran, and by minorities in Iraq and the Persian Gulf states.
• Dari (Dari Persian, Afghan Persian, or Dari) is spoken in Afghanistan.
• Tajiki (Tajik Persian) is spoken in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is written in the Cyrillic script.

There are several issues here. The first is the fact that the two sections more or less duplicate each other. Could they not be combined? And shouldn't the section on "Varieties" be placed earlier in the article, immediately after "Classification", rather than further down, after a long section on History?

Secondly, although the first one is headed "Persian language name in Persian", at least two sentences don't belong here, since they are about the Persian language name in English.

Thirdly, what about the strange sentence "Farsi ... has been the name used by native speakers until the 20th century". That's rather odd: it implies that they no longer use it.

My idea is to amalgamate these two sections to avoid duplication. The amalgamated paragraph will be called "Varieties" and the sentences about the Persian language name in English will be moved to their proper place. Let us have your opinions. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Farsi

Isn't "Farsi" suppose to be specifically the standard form of Persian of Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.191 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Farsi is the native word for Persian. This is similar to Espanol/Spanish, Francais/French, Deutsche/German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.100.39.234 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Farsi is a perfectly acceptable English word, as we've pointed out to this user on more than one page.. IP CU blocked. Meters (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Meters, Moxy and ssimon223 are in violation of WP:NPOV. They think it's acceptable for white Canadians to tell Persians what to call their language. That is racist and cultural imperialism. It is for the Persian people to decide what to call themselves and their language. White people have been trying to impose their point of view on non-whites for a long time and it has to stop. Referring to American news as propaganda is an example of not being neutral. Blocking a user because you do not agree with their opinion is also a violation of WP:NPOV and it's racist as you don't want non-whites to voice their opinion on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.29.65.10 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be impervious to the true fact that it's what Iranians call the language. Would acknowledging that get in the way of venting your anger at white Canadians? For the record, the title of the article on Iranian Wikipedia (which I'm confident is not primarily written by white Canadians) is "زبان فارسی", where the second word is "Farsi".

The absurdity here is that we have people on one hand screaming about Wikipedia articles about countries (Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, for example) or peoples or languages whose titles are the names used by English speakers instead of the names they use themselves in their own language. Here you are screaming about how imperialistic we're being when we do use a term the people use in their own language. Largoplazo (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And as was pointed out several times (on various IPs/accounts) the user's claim that Farsi is not an English word is simple incorrect. This started on Prince Edward Island and various editors pointed out that English dictionaries list "Farsi" and the Canadian government source cited in that article uses both Farsi and Persian. Meters (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This "Farsi/Parsi" thing has been discussed several times. Browse talk page archive. Persian is the common name of this language in English sources and references. It has nothing to do with racism and other irrelevant stuff. We always mention native names in the lead section but the title of articles are based on WP guidelines. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive detail in lead

@Austronesier: I've moved the text to the influences sub-section. QuestFour (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@QuestFour: I agree with you about de-bloating heavy leads, as long as the content—if significant—remains somewhere. I'll move the source to the subsection as well. –Austronesier (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Caucasus-ethnic en.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation support request

While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.

Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.

Thanks in advance and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant comment... --Wisdood (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant comment... --Wisdood (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Attention

PERSIAN LANGUAGE HAS MORE THAN 200 MILLION POPULATION ACROSS THE WORLD ACCORDING TO SCHOOL BOOK I HAVE STUDIED AT SCHOOL WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 1390 LUNAR HIJRI (2011). I EDITED THIS BUT SOMEONE REVERTED MY EDIT. THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THAT I SEE THIS TILL FIVE YEARS AGO, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE RIGHT WHY YOUR NUMBER IS NOT CHANGING OVER TIME.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn't give a link to your edit that was reverted, so I can't check it. But it may be because the number that was already there was supported by the source that was cited for it. If you changed the number but didn't change the source, another editor would have restored the number supported by the source. If you change the number, you need to replace the source with the more recent one. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I edited the population once and linked with with a source but that is reverted once again however the text of that book was in Persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you say the population of Persian Language is just 110 million then let's have look, Mohsen Yegan's song "I promise you" is the highest viewed song in this language with 90 million. If we consider that who did not listen to this song from youtube, people who do not access internet, or children under age do not own devices. Do you still thinks the population would be 110 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakiFrahmand1 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You show no reliable statistics. Just add the population of Iran + Takijistan + Dari speakers, and you only get 110 millions or a bit more, but not 200 millions. In Afghanistan, most of people who speak pashto will not speak Dari. Do not forget that Azeri Turks in Iran speak Azeri language also... --Wisdood (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Persian or Dari is not limited to Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, there are at least 25 another countries where there are a number of people who speak this language. UAE, Middle Asia, Pakistan Australia, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia are most popular countries where there Persian speakers. Zaki Frahmand 21 July 2021 5:33 AEST

References

Persian Language in Anatolia Pre-Middle Ages

There are no sources that state that Persian was widely spoken in Anatolia for good reason, because it wasn't.[14] Anatolia wasn't even on the border, for that you have to go to the upper Euphrates around Nisibis, and north to Iberia. Persian wasn't even widely spoken in what's today modern day Iran as a number of Iranian languages existed such as Parthian, Bactrian, Sogdian etc. The Achaemenid Empire fell in the 330s BCE, 500 years before the Sasanian empire even existed, and the Sasanians controlled parts of Anatolia for only around a decade during Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 the idea that somehow Persian supplanted local languages in a decade is bizarre, for comparison the Ptolemaic Dynasty was Greek ruled Egypt for 250 years but Egyptian didn't disappear, Greek didn't even make inroads with normal Egyptians. And of course the Seleucids ruled Persia for a similar amount of time but Greek of course did not supplant Persian. The Pontic Kingdom was helentistic, its Royal Family had ties to Persia, but the common language was Koine Greek . Anyhow unless there's a reliable source that says Middle Persian was widely spoken in Asia Minor then adding that would be WP:Original Research. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Requesting some help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

There are few references are available, indicating Aurats (word) had considerable origins from medieval era Classical Arabic , medieval era Persian and Ottoman Turkish too and more references are likely to be available if searched deep enough.

Inputs and references regarding historical usage and present usage ,if any, socio-political construct around Aurats (word) are requested.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant comment... --Wisdood (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do send in copy of Wikipedia ownership. If not then do understand What you might not be interested in others might find interested and relevant. If it is irrelevant to you personally then just don't waste time in reading and commenting, and also keep your racist biases with yourself don't waste other's time. (Pl. do read billion times for billion years)

Thanks anyways Bookku (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ownership ??! What is that ?? Which racist biases ???! --Wisdood (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the talk here is about the Persian language... --Wisdood (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)