[قزلباش]

Parsistani, on 19 May 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Well, those regions are today gone to ribalist immigrants. That´s why we can´t claim on Kandahar or entire Zamindawar (Hilmand) and and thus are not part of a new and modern Khorasan (see the current map I created and the last map). We have to exchange Qizilbashs from southern Afghanistan with Pashtuns from northern Afghanistan. We should chose Pashtuns who live in regions where they can be a threat to us, such as Chahar Dareh in Kunduz. Replacing Pashtuns from their and settling Qizilbashs from south. The lands the Qizilbashs have in the south either they sell to Pashtun nomads or they destroy it. What it had or was it does not count, except for some historical regions where I would even support the power of weapons. The current situation like Kandahar make us giving up this region and in the sake of Tajiks, our ancestors and our freedom we will accept that. Once, I was even against that. But one need to see everything through an objective umbrella and understand or accept the current situation.

Lets focus on the bigger picture.
What do you think of the articles I posted?

[Parsistani]

I like them all. They all are written by Danshmanda e maa Farsian

[قزلباش]

10 articles have been written on Tajik wikipedia over the past 3 days. I cant say its good but its better than before.
we are now 699 away from the 10,000 threshold.

By the way, if you dont think this is a big deal, think again.
I remember when Farsi Wikipedia hit 100,000 articles roughly a year ago, it was good times.
The closer you get to these thresholds, the faster the articles start pouring in.

If you wish to participate please use this tool.
http://www.lexilogos..._conversion.htm

This isnt just some numbers game.
Its about intellectual sovereignty. Do you want Tajikistani youth to learn their history and culture from your pen or the pens of others?

[قزلباش]

By the way, you also have the option of using the Latin version of Tajik wikipedia if you want avoid the Cyrillic

But i advise against against it; you'd be missing out on a valuable learning experience.

[Administrator]

There are more Tajiki articles than Pashto articles on wikipedia. I believe we should write up some of the articles in latin too because most Tajiks in Uzbekistan only know how to read in latin.

[قزلباش]

Gul agha, on 22 May 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

There are more Tajiki articles than Pashto articles on wikipedia.

Oh, in that case, forget about writing articles.
Come down to my place and we can have some lamb liver kabob with nan and doogh.
/sarcasm

Its irrelevant.
By the way, Persian surpassed Arabic in today's assessment.
We are currently in 24th place.
http://meta.wikimedi...t_of_Wikipedias


Inshallah we will catch the Ottomans next

[Administrator]

No my point was that even Tajiki which is separate from mainstream Persian wikipedia has more articles than Pashto.

[قزلباش]

Gul agha, on 22 May 2011 - 07:19 PM, said:

No my point was that even Tajiki which is separate from mainstream Persian wikipedia has more articles than Pashto.

Baradar e aziz, my point was that Pashto is not our yardstick.
My point was that it doesnt matter how many articles Pashto does or doesnt have.
Why even bring up Pashto, or any other language for that matter?

I have noticed that this forum is very Pashtuncentric and, frankly, I dont understand it.
I understand that they constitute a threat to our interests in afghanistan but we mustn't preoccupy ourselves with it.

I came to Tajikam to discuss Tajik issues.
When i go to my uncle's house we dont spend the whole time talking about his neighbors!

Khob, nazaret dar moredeh maghalati ke man entakhab kardam chist?

[Parsistani]

As you can see Qizilbash Gerami, this forum has not much active users. Majority are readers. You can get more people for your support when you announce it on facebook. In this forum, only Gul Agha, possibly Sohrab Jan, Khorasani, Superiour, Farangis etc. are very good in writing, while other´s like me are not as good as these people writing articles. Unfortunately, there are, including me, not much active Users here.If we write in Tajik wikipedia it´s important to cover all Tajiks and their regional differences. Which Tajiks lived how and when under whom. That means making clear that the history of Tajiks are diversed.

[قزلباش]

Parsistani, on 23 May 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

As you can see Qizilbash Gerami, this forum has not much active users. Majority are readers. You can get more people for your support when you announce it on facebook. In this forum, only Gul Agha, possibly Sohrab Jan, Khorasani, Superiour, Farangis etc. are very good in writing, while other´s like me are not as good as these people writing articles. Unfortunately, there are, including me, not much active Users here.If we write in Tajik wikipedia it´s important to cover all Tajiks and their regional differences. Which Tajiks lived how and when under whom. That means making clear that the history of Tajiks are diversed.

I unfortunately dont have Facebook.
But I appreciate your suggestion and perhaps we can have someone do this on Facebook.

I typically try to avoid controversial topic on wikipedia. However, i dont really understand why you would want to stress diversity; arent we aiming for unity?
Parsistani, I know that i talk alot about Qizilbash issues on this forum but when i meet non-persians I always introduce myself simply as a "Persian". Nothing more and nothing less. I am even opposed to the very term "Tajik" because i consider it divisive.

[Parsistani]

Of course it is. But we need to work for both terms. It should be made clear that Tajiks are just CA´s Persians that became devided in the 18th centuries and every community had from then on his own history till today. Now, in 2011, we Persian-speakers turn again to eachother. It will take some more time but at the end we will be united again.

[Administrator]

The articles you posted are good but I will add a few more to your list in the coming days.