Talk:Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic

message: It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name.  Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic.  We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we?  --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have articles like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and all the other states of the USA. Tajik SSR was a Republic, with authentic national characteristics, so it deserves a whole article. I do agree, however, that having two different articles for Tajik ASSR and Tajik SSR is illogical, as Tajik ASSR was only a transitional period of the Soviet geo-political division, so I suggest that the article Tajik ASSR be joined with this article in "history" section. --RukhShona (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic

message: Obviously, "Tajik" is the correct transcription now (and should have been then), but during the Soviet period the usual spelling in Western sources was the transliteration from the Cyrillic, "Tadzhik".  Should this article not therefore use the spelling "Tadzhik" with reference to the S.S.R., so as not to be anachronistic?
RandomCritic (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tadzhik is a russified transliteration of Tajik, as there is no "j" in Russian --Ibrahim (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tajik/Tadzhik?

message: There are certain users who have been editing other SSR articles on Wikipedia for the past year, by stating that the soviet republics existed until the adoption of their new constitutions in the mid-1990s. 
Tajik SSR declared itself independent and changed its name to Tajikistan in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1994. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these year spans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Tajikistan did not adopt a new constitution before 1994, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Tajikistan's history than the adoption of a new constitution. A.h. king • Talk to me! 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article editing 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress