This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Iran B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Find sources notice

It is true that these two languages are derived from a form of Early New Persian, but to go so far as to call these languages 'varieties of Persian' is a bit far-fetched. It is not any more of a variety of Persian than Dutch is a variety of German. Most of the sources presented in the corresponding articles have little do with the subject: Minorsky is a historian, not a linguist; Kerslake is a Turcologist, whereas Windfuhr and Borjian call it 'Tati Persian', but that may just be a term, as they never actually state that Tat is a 'variety of Persian' (just like Azeri is sometimes called 'Azeri Turkish', without suggesting that it is a 'variety of Turkish'). None of the experts who have published books and articles dedicated entirely to Tat (Miller, Gruenberg, Authier, etc.) refer to it as 'a variety of Persian'. What is worse is that this article claims Tat and Judaeo-Tat to be languages 'spoken by the Persian people', which is simply not true: there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Tat-speakers of today identify with Persians, not to mention Judeo-Tat-speakers most of whom today live in Israel and who have always had a very strong Jewish identity. Parishan (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Parishan:, excuse me, didn't see you had opened a new section here in the meantime. Thanks. While your assessment might be correct, I think its not correct to simply blanket remove it based on what Ethnologue tells. Regarding your statement that there is no evidence that Tat-speakers of today identify with Persians - well, I'd like to ask the same thing regarding "Hazaras", who actually have totally different origins (and virtually everything) as compared to Persian people, but who are simply lumped here based on the fact that they speak a dialect of Dari. Do you think many (or better said: any) people consider the Hazara people to be "Persians" outside of Wikipedia? What the Tats have in support though furthermore, is their origin, apart from their language which is often classified as, (alternatively) a dialect, variety etc. of Persian. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added two extra references, one by Dalby (linguist) that clearly mentions that its a variety,^[1] and Windfuhr (linguist) that further back up the claims.^[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much of the Hazara identity, but in the case of the Tat language, I did cite reliable authors who have done extensive fieldwork regarding this language group and collected rich ethnographic material, no part of which suggests that there is any reason for the Tat language to be described as 'a language spoken by the Persian people'. All of the mentioned sources (Miller, Gruenberg, Authier) indicate total lack of intelligibility between Tat and Persian and none claims that Tats have any 'special connection' to Persian-speakers on the identity level, other than acknowledging that the two languages are related. In fact, the biggest sociolinguistic study of the Tats, that by Clifton et al. (2005), does not even mention the word 'Persian'. No reliable source refers to Tat as 'a variety of Persian': Dalby and Kerslake have nothing to do with Iranian studies, Minorsky is not even a linguist, Windfuhr may use the term 'Tat Persian', but he never uses the term 'variety'. The belief that Tats descended from pre-Islamic Persian settlers is just a hypothesis; the Tat language (Caucasus) article, for example, claims that they are native to the Caucasus, which means their language may simply be the result of contacts with Iran (the case of Tat-speaking Jews and Tat-speaking Armenians simply confirms that). No common identity, no common language, dubious common origin - why is their language listed in this article? Parishan (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned names of authors; not quotes, not passages, not pages, not anything. Not even titles. I claim alot by just mentioning names of authors. Second, the fact that someone highly accredited like Dalby is not "specialized in Iranian history" doesn't mean we can't use him as an authority. Who says so? Is there any WP that says that its not allowed? The same goes for Kerslake. Windfuhr (1979, 2013) on 2 occasions clearly states that its a form of Persian, or in fact, simply Persian;

• Tat- Persian spoken in the East Caucasus -- Gernot Windfuhr, "Persian Grammar: history and state of its study", Walter de Gruyter, 1979. pg 4
• The Northwestern outpost of Persian is Caucasian Tat Persian -- Windfuhr, Genot (2013). Iranian Languages Routledge. ISBN 978-1408102145 page 417

Or is he also not allowed to make a statement, according to you?

And once more, for the record;

• (...) and Tat (a variety of Persian)...(...) -- Dalby, Andrew (2014). Dictionary of Languages: The definitive reference to more than 400 languages. Bloomsbury Publishing. page 109

- LouisAragon (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three notable sources are:

• Gruenberg, Alexander. (1966). Tatskij jazyk [The Tat language]. In Vinogradov, V. V. (ed.), Jazyki narodov SSSR. Volume 1: Indoevropejskie jazyki, 281-301 - Stating that "the Tat language belongs to the Southwest group of Iranian languages and is close in its grammatical structure and lexical content to the Persian and Tajik languages" (p. 232); no indication of it being a 'variety'.
• Miller, Boris (1929). Taty, ix rasselenie i govory [Tats, their settlements and language varieties]. Izvestija obščestva obsledovanija izučenija Azerbajdžana, #8 - Stating that Tats were most likely indigenous Caucasian population that later acquired an Iranian language due to Iran's influence (p. 11), that Tats of Khizi for the most part considered themselves indigenous with only occasional migrants from Iran (p. 6) and that Tats of Lahij did not trace their ancestry to Iran at all (p. 8), and neither did Tats of Absheron (p. 5).
• Authier, Gilles (2012). Grammaire juhuri, ou judéo-tat, langue iranienne des Juifs du Caucase de l'est. Wiesbaden: Reichert - Stating that "Judaeo-Tat has no particular affinity with the Persian varieties, spoken until recently by Jews of Bukhara, Yazd, Isfahan, Kerman, Hamadan, Kashan, and Nahavand. Contrary to these, Judaeo-Tat is a different language which is not intelligible with Standard Persian".

All of them acknowledge that Tat is related to Persian, but none of them claim that Tat is a 'variety of Persian'. In this case they are more reliable than Kerslake or Dalby, because not only are the latter two much less qualified to make statements with regard to Tat (neither of them has done any research on Tat or cited any reliable sources), but also because putting Kerslake and Dalby above real fieldwork experts on Tat violates WP:UNDUE. As for Windfuhr, I am afraid I have to say this for the third time: he never describes Tat as a 'variety of Persian'. He may call it 'Tat Persian', but that is just a name; just like Azeri is sometimes called Azeri Turkish, without suggesting that Azeri is a 'variety of Turkish'.

Another point that you should probably not ignore: even if Tat is indeed 'a variety of Persian', it is still unclear why an article about Persian people should refer to it, because 'speaking Persian' does not necessarily mean 'being Persian'. Parishan (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, never restore disruptive edits like this [1] again. Your revert just restored those stuff. That user is blocked due to his non-stop disruptive edits and there is a SPI case about him. Next time, just restore your own edits if you think they're correct. I reverted your edit, because you ignored the main article of those languages and you removed some content based on your personal analysis (your edit summary). Second, Ethnologue is a questionable source and you can't decide about languages/dialects just because of it. For example, see this discussion. What do you think about Glottolog's classification system (See Tat entry)? Very different. As you see, none of them can be used as a perfect standard for the classification. We should consider works by expert scholars in Iranian languages (for this case, Persian language), neither Ethnologue nor Glottolog. Third, I agree with this part of your concern: Do any Persian/Persian-speaking ethnic groups use Tat language or not? We can discuss it. But other parts of your concern are just your personal opinion (e.g. the name of Tat Persian is something similar to other alternative names such as Azeri Turkish and etc). The classification of Tat language is irrelevant to this article and should be discussed on its own talk page or on Persian language discussion if you think current classification needs more clarification. Because this article is about an ethnicity or ethno-linguistic group not about dialects/varieties of Persian language. LouisAragon provided good sources and if you don't agree with him, request a third opinion. --Zyma (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what "good sources" you are talking about. You cannot refer to "the main articles" to prove that what is put in this article is accurate. We will deal with "the main article" in its own time. So far, I have cited three authors (see above) who are recognised international-level specialists on the Tat language. And no, we are not discussing the ethnicity here: we are discussing language, because Tat is listed in the article as "a variety of Persian", which all specialists who have worked directly with Tat disagree with. This is not "my personal opinion". Parishan (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsofpersia1999 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Afghanistan Persian People: 14 Million (2015)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the sidebar where it says languages, it says: "Persian(variety of Caucasian Tat

Firstly, this is incorrect, since Tat is a language that originated from Persian, NOT the other way around, and I wouldn't call it a variety since it is a seperate language, might as well be calling English a variety of Sanskrit. Also, I think it should be removed, since Caucasian Tat is irrelevant to the Persian ethnic group since Persians don't speak Caucasian Tat, Tats do, and Tats don't identify with persians, it's completely irrelevant and it's misinformation.

172.58.217.17 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously why did they changed it?! It was good like it was before where every Persian was counted up (also in Afghanistan,Tajikistan,Uzbekistan,Bahrain and so on) Please correct the stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsofpersia1999 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

these facts are crap i need more facts about this reigon for my newspaper in my favorite middle school teachers class — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.34.146 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]