Talk:Dari (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled (2006)[edit]

An unidentified person on April 20, 2006 changed the page from a disambiguation page to a content page about Persian Dari (parsiye dari). It seems to me that all the added information should be included in the Persian language and literature pages, and that the Dari page's status as disambiguation page should be restored. --Maziart 08:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, or perhaps moved into a page called something like History of the Persian language. This page should, as before, be disambiguation between Dari (Afghanistan), Dari (Zoroastrian) and Persian language. Marm 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse-me because I really don't know anything about Dari but... just because of this, it seems to me that Dari entry and Dari (Zoroastrian) look like they're talking about the same thing. If same, I guess they should be merged. If different... well, the difference should be made more evident for those (as myself) who don't see the difference Ictlogist 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Marm 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


21 September 2006 -As a military dari linguist in the USAF, I find that the Dari (Zoroastrian) is accurate to my studies, but misses a rather giant point: Dari is one of two official languages of Afghanistan. Pashto is the other. Dari, as I can tell you from personal experience, is much different from iranian farsi, even though in afghanistan, dari is called "farsi" by those who speak dari. The difference in written form is about the difference between portugese and spanish... I can read farsi just fine, but understanding it takes quite a bit of effort. Additionally, the spoken form is much more different. Unlike what wikipedia states, written dari is different than written farsi. imo it should be treated as such. This page should be restored to what it was.


  • In comparison with the language spoken in Teheran and other Iranian major cities, Dari language is closer
to the official (written) language of Iran.


  • so-called Persian language is not related to the Persian Tribe who established the Persian
Empire by the aid of Medians,eventually demolished by Alexander the Great. And also the
Geographical origion of this language is not the residence area of Persians, situated in the
South of "Iran" and locally named "FARS". The geographical origion of this language is
the "Central Asia". That is why all pioneer poets of this language are from this area, mainly
situated in Afghanistan, Uzbakistan and Tajikistan.The original speakers of this language,that
speak it more perfectly than "Iranians", are called TAJIK.Therefore, "Persian" or "Farsi" is a
wrong name for this language.


BS...on those days the languages were only dialects and different accents, nothing more. Sure, modern Persian language was formed in central Asia by central Asian´s Persian populations, the Tajiks, whos one of their main ancestors or their main ancestors are the Persians, and modern Persian is influenced by Parthian and Sogdian dialects of Persian ...but the elements are still a south-western ones. Therefore, it is correct to call the language as Persian--84.59.111.229 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is impractical as a Disambig[edit]

Looking over the list of Disambig terms, the proportion of people who type "Dari" and want to find "the main language in Afghanistan" has got to be 90% or higher. I submit that Dari being a disambig is impractical at best, and that Dari (Eastern Persian) should be moved to Dari, with a "For other uses, see Dari (disambiguation). I'd welcome any rebuttals, but I think this really needs to be fixed. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I most cases, when used in official Afghan documents and publications, it just means Persian language, not just a modern variety of it. Alefbe (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Dari (Eastern Persian) indeed covers that pretty comprehensively. The question is: what proportion of people type "Dari" and then say "whoa, that's not what I meant!"? I submit that if Dari got you to the content now listed as Dari (Eastern Persian), 95% or more of people would feel they'd arrived in the right place. The Disambig is rather confusing in how it lists different minor variations of Persian languages. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article itself needs to be spitted to two different pages (and it's already discussed). Alefbe (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to the article being split, but it is still the case that 95%+ of people typing "Dari" into the search-box or into Google are looking for "the language they now speak in most of Afghanistan". That being the case, Dari should lead to that article with a Dab used for the 5% looking for something different. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word Dari is too ambiguous and it shouldn't be used as the title of a page (neither for the Persian language in modern Afghanistan, nor for Persian dialects and varieties in Afghanistan, nor for early new Persian). Using an ambiguous title usually lead to wrong links in Wikipedia and misleading assumptions among readers. Also, I don't agree with you about that 95% estimate. Indeed most of the current usage of the word "Dari" in Wikipedia pages just means Persian language (following the tradition of recent official Afghan documents), not just a special modern variety of that language. Alefbe (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2019[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. Retargeting Dari per WP:NCL, as Dari language is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dari → Dari (disambiguation) – Proposing to then also retarget Dari to Dari language as the clear primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title "Dari language" looks fine. Khestwol (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Looks fine" is not the standard that matters here; WP:CONCISE is. --В²C ☎ 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently overstate CONCISE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "language" was only added to languages as natural disambiguation but EB uses Dari language, English language and Scottish Gaelic language so maybe we should always use "language" even if not needed? Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Crouch, Swale, you're touching on to the merits of CONSISTENCY, PRECISION and RECOGNIZABILITY. And if one does not overstate CONCISE, conflating it with brevity (discarding information), Dari Language satisfies CONCISE if there is reasonable possibility for Dali meaning something other than language (eg the people who speak Dari, or the culture of these people). A central feature of this page is that it is about a language, and so language belongs in the title. Persian language, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should probably look at moving the others by changing WP:NCL which specifies that "language" is only added when needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, SmokeyJoe, I don't overstate CONCISE at all; I apply it equally with the other WP:CRITERIA. You, however, consistently ignore CONCISE. CONCISE is the implied basis for the clear guidance in WP:NCL, which you also ignore. If you're going to IAR, you need to justify it. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, B2C, you do clearly overstate CONCISE. One clear indicator is how you frequently single out CONCISE without mention of the other four criteria from the set of five, especially when one or more of the other four are in the balance for the choice. You also don’t seem to appreciate the difference between concise (don’t include redundant superfluous of unimportant words, don’t be wordy) and brevity (discard information). For Dari, a central essential feature is that it is a language. That it is a language is not unimportant to the topic. CONCISE is very important, but so is RECOGNIZABILITY and CONSISTENCY, and yet you rarely mention them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to mention all criteria as appropriate to the given situation. In many of these discussions, including this one, we're choosing between two options which are both commonly used names for the subject in question. Any name commonly used to refer to a given topic inherently meets the RECOGNIZABILITY criterion. In this case, CONSISTENCY, if you insist I mention it, also indicates we should use the bare Dari, to be consistent with other similar titles per the guidance at WP:NCL, which you continue to ignore. As to concision vs brevity, brevity is implied in WP's concision because we generally don't include additional "information" in the title of an article, beyond the name of the subject, unless it is necessary for disambiguation, or, sometimes, for consistency. Some people may be confused by the fact that we do use relatively informative/descriptive titles for articles about topics that don't have names. This is not one of those cases because this topic has a name (Dari). Don't be confused. --В²C ☎ 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its entirely not your fault, but shouting (allcaps) "CONCISE" in isolation gives it apparent weight above the other unstated sort-of co-equal naming criteria. I disagree with WP:NCL, and I think the algorithmic-minded title minimalists are over-represented in writing these obscure narrowly focused guidelines. I'm not sure I want to spend my time engaging on it, they are wrong, but it is of little consequence, as few "language" articles are not immediately ambiguous with a corresponding "people" article, and the articles are so connected that it doesn't hit my "astonishment" threshold of bother. If there were a Dari people article, it would be immediately linked from the lede of Dari language. I disagree with your interpretation of the naming criteria language, as written. Any commonly used name does not necessarily equally satisfy RECOGNIZABILITY, mainly because of the issue of sources writing on an already established context. Most sources on language are written in books and journals already titled with "language", making the subtopic titling with "language" superfluous. Wikipedia titles are bare of context. Dari is definitely of lower RECOGNIZABILITY than the current Dari language. I did note, despite Khestwol disagreeing, that Afghan Persian satisfies COMMONNAME (just look at the current references) and is more RECOGNIZABLE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault at all. Nor is it anyone elses fault. The guidance, "If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." has been in there since February 2003 [1]. The community's affinity for this form of concision in WP article titles had been established for years before I showed up. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 20:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting, selective emphasis, changes the balance. The naming criteria should be read collectively. “Language” is not a suffix, but is part of the natural title, used when introduced out of context. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective nothing. You know full well the intended meaning, and long held interpretation, of that guidance is that "language" is not included in the title unless it's needed for disambiguation. Regarding your predilection to include in titles information and description that might be used when the topic is introduced out of context, there is nothing close to consensus — as expressed in policy, guidelines and conventions — in the community to do that. -В²C ☎ 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is consensus to follow the sources. The sources combine “Dari” with “language”, absolutely if you allow for “language” being in a higher level title. Shortening, but dropping “language” in a set of documents entirely about language is standard writing style. If not in context, Dari alone becomes jargon, at odds with naturalness. Stripping every word not needed for technical title uniqueness is your obsession. Dari language satisfied COMMONNAME and the five criteria best, including concise. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SmokeyJoe, that is your position. We know that. The point under discussion is that your position is not the position of the community, and hasn't been for all of WP history — almost 20 years. The community position has evolved only slightly from "If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." in 2003[2] to "Articles on language varieties ... can be titled with the bare name of the variety where this is unambiguous (e.g. Bokmål) or where it is unquestionably the primary topic for the name..." and only in other cases "a natural disambiguator like '... language' is preferred" (WP:NCL). In other words, the meaning and effect has remained the same; the wording has merely been clarified. If you want to change that, good luck. In the mean time, I suggest you get with the program. --В²C ☎ 23:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is meant to describe not prescribe practice. Backwater guideline pages like NCL written by a handful of people deserve skepticism. Talk to the sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLC is descriptivist - it reflects the conventions that have been adopted for the titles of language articles since the beginning. And here's a typical source:
Pashto, Dari and Farsi languages are spoken in the Southern and central Asian countries. Dari, Farsi and Pashto are all Aryan (Iranian) languages belonging to the Indo-European language family. While Dari and Farsi are two accents of the same language, Pashto is a different language. Dari, Farsi, and Pashto both use the Arabic Alphabet, but they are completely different from the Arabic language. [3].
The NY Times is a good example:
...bid on a project to translate thousands of ordinary English words and phrases into Arabic, Dari, Pashto, Urdu and Uzbek. [4]
The WP:COMMONNAME of the topic of the language is Dari, period; it is not Dari language. That's per policy, conventions and usage in reliable sources. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Descriptive of practice", not your convolution.
Your "typical sources" make my point!
(1) "Pashto, Dari and Farsi languages are spoken". "Dari" is not introduced bare.
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/21/business/business-do-you-speak-uzbek-translators-are-in-demand.html. Article title: "Business; Do You Speak Uzbek? Translators Are in Demand". First use of "Dari": "A United States government agency -- Ad-Ex would not say which one -- asked the company to bid on a project to translate thousands of ordinary English words and phrases into Arabic, Dari, Pashto, Urdu and Uzbek". "Dari" is not introduced bare.
Most importantly, this is how it is for the current references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, the policy and convention is to use the name sources uses for the topic in question, not any additional descriptive information that they may use in introduction (unless necessary for disambiguation). The name of the language is Dari, not Dari language. The fact that sources specify it is a language when they first introduce it is no more relevant to how we title the article than the fact that sources typically identify Alicia Keys as a singer-songwriter[5] when introducing her to how we title the article about her. That principle applies to all subjects, from people to cities, from company name to films and TV series, and yes to languages. Why do you think this introductory descriptive information used by sources is even relevant when the subject's name is unique, or the subject is the primary topic for the name? What exactly is your purpose? This effort of yours, in article after article, seems disruptive to me. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My review of some of the listed references says the title should be "Afghan Persian". Dari is consistently introduced as Afghan Persian, sometimes introduced as Afghan Persian first, and there is consistently an implication that the reader does not know the term "Dari". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Afghan Persian" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is in English language sources, "known as Afghan Persian in many Western sources", and as can be seen in the current references. It also it nicely avoids the name controversy as mentioned in the article. It is also CONSISTENT with a number of other Persian language dialects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. "Afghan Persian" is not consistent with, for example, the closely related Tajik language or Hazaragi dialect of Persian, which are spoken in Central Asia and Afghanistan, respectively. Khestwol (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not "at all"? What about Old Persian, Middle Persian, Modern Persian, Kuwaiti Persian, Judeo-Persian?
All of these could be suffixed by "language" or "dialect". Tajik language is also called "Tajiki Persian".
What are some sources, whether English or Persian, that you can point me to that prefer to use the term "Dari" (preferably introducorily) for this language? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Tajiki Persian" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. I was simply referring to the fact that "Afghan Persian" is not consistent with the article titles of other Persian varieties in the Afghanistan and Central Asia region. A fourth example (besides Dari, Tajik, and Hazaragi) would be Aimaq dialect. See, none of them use "Persian" in the title. We should perhaps rename Tajik language to the rarely used "Tajiki Persian" first if we are to be consistent. Khestwol (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This reticence to use "Persian" in topics of Persian languages, is, I think, a consequence of looking too hard at sources already deeply immersed as opposed to introductory uses. Once deeply immersed,m everything is "... Persian language", and it is natural to not fill the discourse, written or spoken, with that huge amount of repetition. Wikipedia titles are not deeply immersed.
Is your preference for this article to be Dari language? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "Dari language" should stay at its current title, but I agree with the nom that "Dari" should redirect to "Dari language", and this disambiguation page should be moved to "Dari (disambiguation)". Khestwol (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine with me. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dari_(disambiguation)&oldid=925899402"