Talk:Farsiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Farsiwan article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Image of Herati traditional dance removed for now

I removed this image since Parsiwans aren't really distinguished seperatly from the Tajiks by their appearance, but rather by religious sect. Also because not all Heratis are Farsiwan. The common consensus is that most of Herat is Tajik with a Shia (Farsiwan) minority. I'll keep it here. If you disagree please let me know and I'll place it back.

Image:Herati dance.jpg
Herāti Fārsīwān women performing their traditional dance.

--Behnam 11:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most original hertais (not migrants from elsewhere) are Shia and I no none that call themselves Tajiks. --Babakexorramdin 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is more Sunnis in Herat than Shias. Besides, the term Tajiks is not exclusively for Sunnis, it is used for Farsi-speaking people east of Iran regardless of sect. Even Shia Farsi people in Iran can refer to themselves as Tajiks, for example Saadi Shirazi often calls himself Tajik in his poems. Farsiwan usually refers to the Shia Tajiks. The Shia Farsiwan are also ofcoarse Tajiks, (e.g. Saadi Shirazi, Latif Pedram, etc) --Behnam 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

This article as of January 2008 stated a population of 900,000 Farsiwan without citation. However, the Encyc. Iranica gives a figure of 600,000. L. Dupree, "Afghanistan: (iv.) Ethnography", in Encyclopædia Iranica, Online Edition 2006, LINK. Keeping in mind that the Encyc. Iranica article was written in 1982, and that a systematic census has not been held in the country since 1980, exact figures about the size and composition of the various ethnic groups are not available. BBC News - Afghan poll's ethnic battleground - October 6, 2004 Hence, 900,000 may be correct given 25 years of growth, or refugees leaving Herat for Iran or elsewhere may have stabilized that figure at 600,000 or even reduced it. Because of this uncertainty, I have used the 600,000 figure for which we have a citation with a clarifying (est.1982). --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Robson, Barbara and Lipson, Juliene (2002) "Chapter 5(B)- The People: The Tajiks and Other Dari-Speaking Groups" The Afghans - their history and culture Cultural Orientation Resource Center, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., [http://worldcat.org/oclc/56081073 OCLC 56081073, gives a figure of 500,000. --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distinct from Tajiks

The Encyc. Iranica makes clear in the article on Afghanistan - Ethnography that "The term Farsiwan also has the regional forms Parsiwan and Parsiban. In religion they are Imamite Shiite. In the literature they are often mistakenly referred to as Tajik." L. Dupree, "Afghanistan: (iv.) Ethnography", in Encyclopædia Iranica Online Edition 2006. They are not just urban dwellers they are farmers in Herat and Farah provinces. See, e.g., Robson, Barbara and Lipson, Juliene (2002) "Chapter 5(B)- The People: The Tajiks and Other Dari-Speaking Groups" The Afghans - their history and culture Cultural Orientation Resource Center, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., [http://worldcat.org/oclc/56081073 OCLC 56081073 and [www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo006/fmo006-3.htm "Afghanistan: Hisorical political overview" FMO Research Guide]--Bejnar (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Iranica does, and even though I trust it more than anything, Encyclopedia of Islam does not and Encyclopedia of Islam is more established than the newer Iranica. BEIJINGBOY2 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Even the best are allowed an oversight here and there. The body of modern scholarship makes a distinction, both linguistically as well as in terms of religion. --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
He's right. EI says,
“ Tadjik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of

Afghanistan, often also called Parsiwans, or, in the East and South, Dihgans and Dihwars.

 ”

and

“ The self-designation of

Persian-speakers in AfÿŠ§nist§n had been for a long time most commonly F§rsÊw§n, F§rsÊb§n, or F§rsÊ-gå(y).

 ”

RealAfghan112 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The problem is that Parsiwan ot Farsiwan just means "Persian speaking". That scholars have used it for a particular people is unfortunate, but we have to live with it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of citations to the distinctness of the Farsiwan. I thought that three would be sufficient. See also: Newell, Richard S. (1989) "Post-Soviet Afghanistan: The Position of the Minorities" Asian Survey 29(11): pp. 1090-1108, p. 1098, who says:
Fariwans. Farsiwans are in a similarly anomolous position in Afghanistan’s society and politics. As the component of the Persian peasantry occupying the extreme eastern sector of the Iranian Plateau located within Afghanistan, Farsiwans have been progressively incorporated into the Afghan polity during the past two centuries. Pushtun control of their region began with the forced resettlement of the Durranis at Herat by the Persian conqueror, Nadir Shah Afsharh, in the I 730s. Afghan success in holding onto Herat through several campaigns in the nineteenth century perpetuated national claim to the region. Historically and religiously distinct from the Tajiks, Farsiwali political and cultural sophistication centered on Herat gives Farsiwans a roughly analogous position in western Afghanistan’s thought and politics. There are wide variations in estimates of their numbers; Dupree puts it at 600,000.[citing Dupree, Louis (1973) Afghanistan Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., p 58].

There are more. Would you like some of them? --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the discussion of minorities in Afghanistan in Nyrop, Richard F. and Seekins, Donald M, (1986) Afghanistan: A Country Study Foreign Area Studies, American University, Washington, D.C., distributed by Government Printing Office, OCLC 13328715. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are three more citations:
  • Adamec, Ludwig W. (1997) Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, ISBN 0-585-21026-8, on page 106 says: "Farsiwan: An ethnic group of some 600000 Farsi-speaking Shi'a Muslims living near the Iranian border, in Herat, ..."
  • Hanifi, Mohammed Jamil (1976) Historical and Cultural Dictionary of Afghanistan Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., ISBN 0-8108-0892-7, on page 36 lists the Farsiwan population as 600,000 and lists them as primarily agriculturalist.
  • Maloney, Clarence (1978) Language and Civilization Change in South Asia E.J. Brill, Leiden, ISBN 90-04-05741-2, on page 131 calls the Fasiwan "farmers of western Afghanistan (and in some areas south and west of Kabul) [who] speak a variety of Iranian Farsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejnar (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are Farsiwan distinct from other Tajiks?

Request for comments on whether the Farsiwan of Heart and Farah provinces are distinct from other Tajiks?:

  • Statement in favor of distinction: The Farsiwan of Heart and Farah provinces of Afghanistan and their neighbors immediately across the Iranian border have been identified by ethnologists as a separate group from the generally urbanized Tajiks of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the word Farsiwan means “Persian speaking” so it has also been used, non-ethnologically, to refer to Tajiks in general. The Encyclopedia Iranica lists separate population figures for the Farsiwan and the Tajik, and points out that In the literature they are often mistakenly referred to as Tajik. The majority of the Farsiwan in Heart and Farah provinces are farmers, not urbanized. There are also linguistic differences. The Farsiwan are Shiite, not Sunni as are most Tajiks in Afghanistan. There are also linguistic differences. --Bejnar (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Statement opposed to distinction:
Heratis are urbanized. Herat is a city. The Encyclopedia of Islam, which is more established than Iranica, states:
“ Tadjik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of

Afghanistan, often also called Parsiwans, or, in the East and South, Dihgans and Dihwars.

 ”

RealAfghan112 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Farsiwans and Tajiks speaks one language and genetically are of the same stock but Farsiwans are Shia and tajiks are Sunni. I'd rather call Farsiwans, Shia Tajiks; as opposed to a distinct ethnolinguistic group. (talk) 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.7.76 (talk)


  • Statements by parties not previously involved:

for iranian shia, who came with Nader Shah Afshar and Ahmad shah durrani to Khurasan(Afghanistan) ther is a name: Qizilbash. in Afghanistan People call them Qizilbash, they are shia and farsi speakers. 82.10.88.187 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schurmann

H. F. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan: an Ethnography of the Moghols and Related Peoples of Afghanistan. The Hague: Mouton, 1962: [1]; p. 75: "... the Tajiks of Western Afghanistan [are] roughly the same as the Khûrâsânî Persians on the other side of the line ...", speaks of Tajiks, not Fariwans in the specific sense.--Bejnar (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the source. The Khurasani Persians of Iran are Shia in religion. Since the Shia religion is the only difference between "Farsiwans" and "Tajiks proper" in Afghanistan, it is clear that Schurman is talking about the Farsiwans. However, since religion does not define ethnicity (otherwise there would be also a difference between Catholic Germans and Protestant Germans), the Tajiks as whole in Western Afghanistan are "roughly the same as the Khurasani Persians" of Iran.
And please do not remove the word "Persian" from the intro. Even though you might not believe it, but "Farsi" is a quite common designation of Persian-speaking Shias in Herat and surrounding areas. In Herat's suburbs (where my father is from), "Farsi" is used as a synonym for Shias while "Awghon" (=Afghan) is used as a synonym for Sunnis, regardless what ethnicity someone belongs to (i.e. Persian-speaking Pashtuns who are also Shias are considered "Farsi" and Persian-speaking Tajiks who are Sunnis are called "Awghon"). Besides that, the word is sourced!
My point exactly, Schurmann is painting with too broad a brush for citation to this section to be meaningful in this specific context. --Bejnar (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parsi

The fact that the word Parsi is used sometimes to refer to Tajiks is irrelevant to this article about the Farsiwan. --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Bejnar. The term "Parsi" is NOT used for Tajiks, but for the Shia Farsiwan SPECIFICALLY. As such, it is relevant. Shias in Eastern Afghanistan and other cities EXCEPT Herat are known as Kizilbash - they are neither refered to as "Tajiks" nor "Farsis". However, in Herat, they are generally refered to as Farsiwan or Farsi. Honestly: do you have any knowledge about Afghanistan? I appriciate your work on Afghanistan-related articles, but some of your edits are absolutely contraindicated and do not improve the quality of the articles. People in Afghanistan do not have the straight "black vs. white" definition of ethno-linguistic groups or religions. To them, sometimes religion defines ethnicity (see Hazara, Sikhs or Kizilbash), sometimes its only the languages (see Nuristani), and sometimes its the family's paternal line (see Pashtuns or Arabs). It's not a logical system. But if you stubbornly try to integrate that illogical system into the modern view of ethnicity of language, you have to be careful.
Look at the Google hits for English language use of the word Parsi, just for example. No ethnicity is not just by language, hence there is that which makes the Farsiwan distinct and it is not just religion or language. By the way the Hazara are not just distinct because of religion, see genotyping. Maybe you are thinking of another editor's pigeon-holing. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argumentation does not make any sense. And its lacks logic. While you see Hazaras as a distinct ethnic group because of genotypes (which actually proves that you have no wide-range knowledge about Afghanistan, because some Hazaras are totally Caucasoid and have no traces of Mongoloid origins), you have a totally different standard for Farsiwans and others. If this is only about genetics, then we should all declare in Wikipedia that the Turkish people are no Turks, because they are Caucasoid and not Mongoloid like the original Turks or the Central Asian Turks. You have double standards, Bejnar. and that's mostly because you edit topics you very obviously have no knowledge about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.122 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that we should follow Wikipedia policy and not try to strive for some absolute truth. We should strive for as neutral a point of view as possible using pinpoint citation to reliable published sources. We should also try to follow English language usage and conventions. Since in this world different things are treated differently, sometimes one thing is published, sometimes another, the articles reflect this. We don't have ethnic statistics for a lot of the world. What constitutes ethnicity is very fluid. There is no one right answer that will work for all distinctions. --Bejnar (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please practice what you preach. You have deleted 2 sources and falsified a erd one just to push for your version. Before reverting, at least READ the current text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.41.106 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)