Talk:Hazaras/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hazara Tribes

I've wrote down the names of few Hazara tribes I knew, please expand and correct it if you find some error. And no Hazara calls himself Azra, 'Hazara' would be more better while referring us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.255.4 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Etymology/Origins by user: ShirbachaHazara

Hazara means thousand??? are you kidding Mr.Author??? wake up for God's sake, and hit some books my friend. The Hazaras have nothing to do with Mongols. The Hazaras have been living in the region (Gharjistan, Zabulistan and present day Hazaristan) way long before invasion of Mongol to Hazaristan.

According to your research we have been in Afghanistan only for 700-800 yrs (Ghengis Khan history) then you think, what you've just proved with your article... As much as we might be mixed with Mongols to an extend, you shouldn't be all that proud to be of his blood line. We had history and the same look way before invasion of Far East and till parts of Europe by Ghengiz Khan. Our statue proves it(the statue of Bamiyan) Chinese history book proves that, and so does some English and Persian History to an extend, covers all the history, kingdoms and native people's of those regions in the past 2000 - 4000 years ago.

The Hazaras have been living in Aryana, Khorasan and present day Afghanistan for more than six thousand years (Tarikhe Hazaraha, writer Mr. Kazim Yazdani) with his historical prove. thus, calling the Hazaras as descendants of Ghengiz khan is a big insult to the proud Hazara Nation.

The word “ Hazara” is also an ancient Aryan word meaning happy and famous. For me this concept of relation between the words Hazara and ming (1ooo) makes no sense. As a Farsi native speaker; I can argue that every Farsi speaking person can easily realize that the word .Hazara. doesn’t mean thousand; thus there is an obvious distinction between .Hazar. which means thousand and .Hazara. which really can’t be translated as thousand. If so, then we can translate the word .Lakh. meaning .hundred thousand. in Farsi to .lakha. which means a dirty dot on your cloths or a sign on your body and same with any other numeric number. Though, Hazara can be linked to the thousandth year in its Farsi meaning as Dah (ten) or Sad (hundred) which in turn becomes Daha (the tenth year) and Sada (the hundredth year). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirbachaHazara (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hazaras have nothing to do with Mongols.

The Hazaras have been living in the region (Gharjistan, Zabulistan and present day Hazaristan) way long before invasion of Mongol to Hazaristan.

As much as we might be mixed with Mongols to an extend, you shouldn't be all that proud to be of his blood line.

We had history and the same look way before invasion of Far East and till parts of Europe by Ghengiz Khan. Our statue proves it(the statue of Bamiyan) Chinese history book proves that, and so does some English and Persian History to an extend, covers all the history, kingdoms and native people's of those regions in the past 2000 - 4000 years ago.

The Hazaras have been living in Aryana, Khorasan and present day Afghanistan for more than six thousand years (Tarikhe Hazaraha, writer Mr. Kazim Yazdani) with his historical prove.

thus, calling the Hazaras as descendants of Ghengiz khan is a big insult to the proud Hazara Nation.

The word “ Hazara” is also an ancient Aryan word meaning happy and famous.

For me this concept of relation between the words Hazara and ming (1ooo) makes no sense. As a Farsi native speaker; I can argue that every Farsi speaking person can easily realize that the word .Hazara. doesn’t mean thousand; thus there is an obvious distinction between .Hazar. which means thousand and .Hazara. which really can’t be translated as thousand. If so, then we can translate the word .Lakh. meaning .hundred thousand. in Farsi to .lakha. which means a dirty dot on your cloths or a sign on your body and same with any other numeric number. Though, Hazara can be linked to the thousandth year in its Farsi meaning as Dah (ten) or Sad (hundred) which in turn becomes Daha (the tenth year) and Sada (the hundredth year). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirbachaHazara (talk • contribs)

CIA factbook number is wrong

It says 1.7 million, not 6 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.8.172 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazaras are Turkic people. this is fact and obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.196.212 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sunni Hazaras

There are many sunni Hazaras like Aimaks and Hazaras in north eastern Hazarjat, sunni Hazaras associate and blur themselves with Turkmen and Uzbeks rather than Tajiks and Pashtuns.

This choice of words is abusive, but indicative of a person to whom it matters if someone is Sunni or Shiite. Who cares which religion someone has? 144.136.177.138 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hazaras call themselves Azra

All Hazaras call themselves Azra. When it comes to writing and interactoin with other peoples then Hazaras use Hazara to be understood better by others.

I suggest it is necessary to make a note on this matter on the main article. Thank you.

This is right: the name of this people is more correctly the Azra. They are named after the home: the Hazarajat. The term Azara in Persian stands for the top mountain ridges. That is exactly where the Hazarajat in Afghanistan (but also the Hazarajats in Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran and Tajikistan) are located: at the top mountain ridges. In fact the term Azara also stands for crenellations on the top of defensive walls surrounding a castle, simply because those indentations make the walls look like the rough ridges at the top of the mountains. Therefore, Hazara just means the people who inhabit the 'Azara' of the mountains ridges. It is a common mistake, however, to assign the incongruous military term for a regimental division to this people. izady~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izady (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hazaras are clearly turkic people. their farsi languge doesn't make a change. they are turkic as other turkic people. they are not shias alone but sunnis and ismaelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.243.249 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted a number of edits by anon IPs because they were falsifying the given sources. Tajik (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have once again corrected the mistakes put into the article by anon IPs. Tajik (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the stable version of July 19th. Tajik (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have once again reverted obvious vandalism by anon IPs. Tajik (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional important update on Hazara women's education and political activities Asia/Europe.

Hazaras are democratic and peace loving as a nation. Hazaras welcome women as leaders and do not prevent them from education. Infact Hazara mothers push their children to obtain education by reminding them of the period of Abdul rehman, especially due to the fact that the Pashtons tried their best to keep Hazaras as illiterate minority for generations.

Hazara women have against all odds managed to obtain ph.D through schorlarship from Pakistan namely from German universities.

Hazara women as leaders: (In the 2004 presidential election, the highest female voter registration was recorded in Hazara areas.) For example, there were 13 women in the Central Committee of the Hazara Unity Party during the civil war of the 90s. No other party in Afghanistan had presence of women in such high-profile political roles.

Currently, the Chairperson of Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission and the former first vice-president of Afghanistan, Ms. Sima Samar, is a Hazara.

The first-ever female Governor in Afghanistan is Habiba Sarabi, another Hazara.

The first-ever female mayor in Afghanistan, Uzra Jaffery, is a Hazara.

In the 2004 presidential election, the highest female voter registration was recorded in Hazara areas.

Pakistan Quetta, Retired Captain Doctor Mrs. Ruquiya S. Hashmi is minister from Balochistan.

Denmark Copenhagen, The Hazara Union had as the very first migrant organization a 1. generation youth Laila Changezi as their president in 1988-89.

Persecution:

The pro taliban supporters target Hazaras, especially police and other important local leaders because of being Shia-Muslims. Recent years Baluchistan have insecure landscape due to the firce hold of lashkar-e taiba. Many prominent hazara fear for their lives, because they have repeated received threats from above mentioned pro-al-qaida supporters to leave Quetta for good or risk their lives and families. The laskar-e taiba have repeated cariied out assinations of police cadets and other youths in goverment service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamethod (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Education: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onereader (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RV

I've reverted POV edits by an unknown IP. Tajik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any good reason for removing sourced information or are you trying to tell us that Hazara people don't exist?Time Buddha (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove a paragraph on sunni and ismaili hazaras??Time Buddha (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your information is not sourced. In fact, you are actively manipulating and falsifying sources. The article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, for example, starts with the sentence: The origins of the Hazāras are uncertain and much debated among scholars (see Bacon, 1951, 1963; Ferdinand, 1959; Schurmann, pp. 110-58; Gawecki, 1980; Poladi, pp. 1-29; Mousavi, pp. 19-43). [2] It goes on with: Without taking side in this controversy (see also Ferdinand, 1959, 1964; Mousavi, pp. 28-31), it seems probable historically that the origins of the Hazāras lie with the Mongolian and Turkish groups which progressively penetrated the infertile mountainous region situated between Persia, Central Asia, and India between the 13th and the 15th centuries, mixed with the local population and adopted their language.

Iranica is an authoritative scholarly work and the standard reference work of Iranian studies. Your behavior is not helping. Tajik (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on sunni and ismaili hazaras has nothing to do with iranica.Time Buddha (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How come the hazaras are 9% while they have 52 people in a parliament? there are 249 members in ther afghan parliament.

User:Tajik's double standard on Iranian peoples and Hazara people

In this edit on iranian peoples, User:Tajik restored a section which said azeris and uzbeks are iranian peoples even though they speak turkic language because they descend from iranian peoples. In this edit on Talk:Hazara people, User:Tajik say language is the main factor for ethnic identiy in the middle east, so User:Tajik could claim hazaras are iranian peoples, but Hazaras are descended from mongols, and therefore not iranian.Time Buddha (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You totally misunderstand the definition of Iranian peoples. You also falsify (!) attached scholastic sources. I had asked you to stop it, but obviously, you are not interested in constructive working. Instead of falsifying (!) attached sources, you should read them first! And the article does not say that Azeris and Uzbeks are "Iranian peoples". It says that Iranian peoples (= Iranian-speaking peoples) formed a major part of their ancestors. This is what scholars tell us. Your claim that Hazaras are "Turko-Mongol" is false, because there is no doubt that Hazaras are Persian-speaking. A partial Asiatic (Altaic) origin is hard to deny, but that does not make them "Turko-Mongols" because they do not speak an Altaic language. Tajik (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the following movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xewwbwQDUg from YouTube. It's a Hazaragi movie. As you see the characters in the movie, they generally have the distinctive physical features of Mongols. They are the mixture of Mongolic and Turkic people, but they speak a dialect of Persian language with Turkic and Mongolic words. In an encyclopedia, it is mentioned that there are several theories regarding the origins of the Hazaras. The most prevalent maintains that they are descendents of the soldiers and feudal lords of Chinggis Khan, the great warrior leader of the 12the century, who united the Mongol tribes and founded the Mongol Empire. The Hazara people generally have the distinctive physical features of Mongols. Hazar is the Persian word for "thousand" which may refer to the fact that the Hazaras arrived in their thousands, like the hordes of Mongol invaders in the 12lh century. However, other theories trace their origins further back to earlier migrants from Central Asia, possibly those of Chinese Buddhists or of Turkic Peoples or both. About their language, it is also said that Dari is the official name of the Farsi (Persian) language in Afghanistan, but the language of the Hazaras is known as Hazaragi. It is a mixed dialect of Farsi with some Turkic and Mongol words. Source: Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Read Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=stl97FdyRswC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en - Also I see that nobody agrees with you about the origin of them in this debate since 2009. ---- BozokluAdam (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. First of all, your claim that (all) Hazaras speak Hazaragi is totally wrong. By now, perhaps 50% of the Hazaras do NOT speak Hazaragi but a standard dialect of (Dari-)Persian, usually of the Kabuli type. In regard of your this edit: no, the movie is NOT in Hazaragi, it is in Dari Persian while Hazaragi is used in some parts of it (I guess you do not speak Perdian at all). It deals with Hazaras in Hazarajat and hence Hazaragi is used. Besides that, youtube is not a reliable source in this case. Please keep the intro neutral. The more detailed infors on the Hazaras' language is given in the respective subsection. --Lysozym (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim all Hazara people speak Hazaragi, but I assert that the original language of Hazara people is Hazaragi. I have given a secondary source for it. In the meantime, you see there isn't any consensus on this topic in your favour. Here are several people who are not in your opinion. Wait for a consensus before changing it. BozokluAdam (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim all Hazara people speak Hazaragi, but I assert that the original language of Hazara people is Hazaragi. I have given a secondary source for it. In the meantime, you see there isn't any consensus on this topic in your favour. Here are several people who are not in your opinion. Wait for a consensus before changing it. BozokluAdam (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

language means nothing! Nigerians speak english, does that mean they are germanics? no! language can be adopted but genes cannot! the Iranians, including Tajiks and Pashtuns are Caucasian people or white people if you like! but hazaras clearly looks more lik mongoloids, their appearance are more like chinese and mongolian, turkics are varied, kazaks looks more like mongoloids but turkish are clearly white looking.

Consider the caucasian people surronding the hazaras, they are definitely not iranians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

if language is not important, then what about the hazara culture?? why they have chahar shanbe suri, nawrooz and all cultural characteristics of the iranian poeple?? look at the names of their tribes and areas. they are all persian. shahristan, yaka wa lang, jaghoori ( jai ghoori), malistan, nawoor, ahangar, nili, behsood, dai mirdad, and ...

can anyone show me one single mongol cultural influence on hazara culture? mongolian words are used in every language. tuman, the irnian currency name. khan and ...

in most of the ares of afghanistan the hazaras and tajiks basicaly are hard to tell from one another. in badakhshan, baghlan, mazar sharif, bamyan. same culture, same language. the only different is the sect. the small cultural difference is due the regigous sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.181.148 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

hazaras persian?

they are talking a clear Turkish,maybe there is some persian words,but if you check their language it is a Altaic language and clear Turkish..check this music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nayikbqSxFE&feature=channel_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasdaus (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is disputed

The recent edits by User:Hazaraboyz are totally unencyclopedic,unsourced, and nationalistic POV. It is obvious that the user does not even have the slightest understanding or qualification of/for the subject. I have asked an admin for help. We have excellent reference works in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam which are being constantly ignored. Tajik (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Salam Tajik:

The edit I made is the reality and fact about Hazara, If any sentence is nationalistic and can cause informal position, you can mention it and I will give you answere with correct reference. There is nothing unfact which noted on article Hazara people. User:Tajik has said many unacceptable sentence and changes to article Hazara people or related article as mentioned above by User: Time Budha Thank you | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any facts, and I do not see any reliable sources. Tajik (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All the edit i have made is the summery of paragraph mentioned in the article. nothing change is made men, | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that Hazaras are a "Turkic-Mongol people" clearly shows that you lack understanding of linguistics. Claiming that Hazaragi is not a dialect of Persian shows that you have no knowledge of the secondary literature available. Putting papers that you do not even know as sources for your POV shows that you do not know the Wiki rules either. You also have removed the "accuracy" tag for which I have reported you to an admin, because it is easy to show that your POV is contradicted by scholarly reference works, most of all the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica. You may not agree to that, but that's because you do not even have the slightest qualification in this case. I am sorry, but that's the truth. You had already been asked by another member not to spread your own personal POV. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading unsourced, unscholarly, nationalistic nonsense. Tajik (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the last stable version of the article before it was changed/vandalized/destroyed by Hazaraboyz (talk · contribs) and/or his sockpuppets (see CU evidence). Tajik (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted edits by an anon IP, most likely NisarKand (talk · contribs). Tajik (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How this major changes were reverted by User:Tajik:

The User:Tajik Have reverted a major edits which were made by many users. He cannot revert the whole edits. Please talk it now. I have checked the edits and if no sourced were given then it will be reverted to previous version. Here is the achieve [Click here]Nurbandma (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources were weak and unreliable, the writings style was poor, the info was contradicting major scholarly works. That'S why these POV edits were reverted. The user who made these edits was blocked for POV pushing and sockpuppetry. By the way: trying to evade a current block by using other sockpuppets may get him banned permanently. Tajik (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RV

I have once again reverted falsifications and POV by an anon. IP user, most likely banned User:Hazaraboyz. Tajik (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hazara people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has a lot of problems and was failed

• Sources: Some to other Wikipedia pages, and self-styled Hazara websites. Not RS
• Lack of sources in some areas
• Undue weight in history, late 1900s and late 1800s
• POV claim of being the smartest race, no source, followed by a large section alleging discrimination, with no sources.
• Unverified claims of Hazaras in Australia and Pakistan being scholarly, etc.

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of Hazara people in Iran

I note that User:SorenShadow has used the SIL Ethnologue as a reference for claiming that there are 283.000 Hazara people in Iran. However, this source must be used with care - the relevant page shows that it refers to Hazaragi speakers, while the article claims that there exist a number of people regarded as member of the Hazara ethnic group that don't speak Hazaragi. I don't know the right number, so haven't made a change, but take care. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

youtube

a picture is worth a 1000 words —Preceding unsigned comment added by AboutFaace (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of Hazara in Afghanistan

I'm not sure what source the person who wrote the first paragraph is reading, but the CIA factbook (which is cited as a source) states that the Hazara are the THIRD largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, not the largest. I'm going to change this. Kilamanjaroface (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RV

I've reverted POV and partial vandalism by an IP. Tajik (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What was un-encyclopedic in introduction section?

The introduction section was described more a little for better understanding of the Hazara peoples as below
(The Hazāra (Persian: ھزاره, Hazaragi: آزره, Urdu: ہزاره also rendered as Hazara, Azra, Azara) are a Persian-speaking ethnic group with population mainly in central Afghanistan also known as Hazarajat, Pakistan "Mainly in Quetta") and in Iran. They are overwhelmingly Shia Muslims and comprise the third largest ethnic group)

This was updated and then called un-encyclopedic by the user:Tajik. If the user is still ignores all the facts about the Hazaras, I am ready to share the resources and referenced article which will prove the statements written above. Ehussain (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Population figures

The regional population data for Iran and Pakistan do not match between the lead section text and info box. These need to be validated/corrected to match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avagad2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hazara ethnic people in all countries

Source: Hazara ethnic group. Zagroos (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Population estimates do not match the sources

The article claims that there are 6,685,000 Hazara's in Afghanistan and CIA WFB is used as a source. According to that source, Hazara's only make up 9% of the total population. If Afghanistan's total population in 2010 was 28,395,716 and Hazara's only make up 9% of that, then their population in Afghanistan would be around 2,555,614. I will change Afghanistan's estimate at the moment and will later change the one's for Iran, Pakistan and Canada as well. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

Some ignorant Iranian has put 11 million Hazaras in Afghanistan. I changed it back to 3 million. Afghanistan's population is 32 million, the Hazaras are 9%, so that's around 3 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunni and Shiia...

The article currently states "Today, the majority of the Hazaras adhere to Shi'ism, whereas Afghanistan's other ethnic groups are mostly Sunni and Shia.", which seems to be an odd turn of phrase. There is no source given, either. According to Pashtun peoples Pashtuns are overwhelmingly Sunni, Tajik people makes the same claim for Tajiks, and majority Sunni is also claimed in Uzbeks. I suspect the "and Shia" should be struck, and maybe the whole sentence rephrased as "whereas Afghanistan's other major ethnic groups are mostly Sunni". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "Hazaras" vs "Hazara"

The word Hazara refers to the ethnic group, I don't understand why editors put a "s" to make it plural? If I am ever asked what my ethnic group was? should I say "Hazara" or "Hazaras"? Obviously Hazara because it is my ethnicity and it is known as "Hazara" not "Hazaras". I know in Persian and Dari, we say "Hazaraha" to talk about two or more Hazara, but in English language it would be inappropriate to translate it as "Hazaras". For instance, the word "Marduman" and "Mardum", when talking about a group of people, both mean "People" in English, same is the case with "Hazaraha" and "Hazara" English would be "Hazara" not "Hazaras". What I want to say, when we talk about this ethnic group, we should refer to it as "Hazara" not "Hazaras". One other thing, the articles and books etc written about "Hazara" by Afghan writers like S.A Mosauvi and Poladi, have referred to "Hazara" as "Hazaras" (English version of their books) maybe because of the direct translation of word from Dari to English? and western authors like Elizabeth E. Bacon in "The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan" refers as "Hazara". I am not sure, any suggestions? And I believe all the words "Hazaras" should be changed into "Hazara". Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing images from the article

I believe images of Abdul Haq Shafaq, Sayed Anwar Rahmati and Sima Samar or Habiba Sarabi (one of the ladies) should be replaced with images of popular and more historically prominent figures like Abdul Ali Mazari, Sultan Kishtmand and others, what do you say? Images of above mentioned persons can be placed in the relative section. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 22:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Shahidabdulalimazari.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shahidabdulalimazari.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

what is your name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.193.106 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hazara people.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hazara people.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

farid sahil is a hazara boy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.134.71 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Abdul Haq Shafaq.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abdul Haq Shafaq.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Abdul Haq Shafaq.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

@ BozokluAdam

I have reverted your changes. First of all, your claim that (all) Hazaras speak Hazaragi is totally wrong. By now, perhaps 50% of the Hazaras do NOT speak Hazaragi but a standard dialect of (Dari-)Persian, usually of the Kabuli type. In regard of your this edit: no, the movie is NOT in Hazaragi, it is in Dari Persian while Hazaragi is used in some parts of it (I guess you do not speak Perdian at all). It deals with Hazaras in Hazarajat and hence Hazaragi is used. Besides that, youtube is not a reliable source in this case. Please keep the intro neutral. The more detailed infors on the Hazaras' language is given in the respective subsection. --Lysozym (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

a) Please do not change the chronology of the discussion page. That is not allowed. b) You are the one who is changing a consensus-version. The native language of the Hazara is the Persian language. "Hazaragi" is just a name given to a few related dialects spoken in and around Bamiyan almost exclusively by the Hazara (that means: there are also Non-Hazara who speak those dialects). It does not have a written standard but is merely a dialect. Many Hazaras, especially those in Kabul and Herat, speak a different dialect. Your claim is totally wrong. --Lysozym (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that some of the Hazaras DO NOT speak Hazaragi at all. I would like to talk about couple of things first, claiming that 50% of Hazaras don't speak Hazaragi is completely wrong. I know you are talking about Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat where majority of the Hazara people speak Dari (and they have to) but that population doesn't make 50% of Hazaras, it is obvious. Secondly, you claim that the native language of Hazara is Persian, which I strongly oppose as the Hazaras didn't speak Persian. According to Iranica they spoke a sort of Mongolian language (which is not even close to persian) in 16th century during the time of King Babur and G.K Dulling in his book The Hazaragi Dialect of Afghan Persian clearly states that the Hazaras started speaking a sort Tajik language by the end of 18th century. The native language is not Persian and I don't disagree that the current Hazaragi is not from Persian family, it clearly is, where Persian is taking over the Mongolian and Turkic loanwords in the Hazaragi but it DOES NOT mean that we can't call this dialect by its name Hazaragi and attribute it to Hazara people. One last thing Hazaragi is not spoken just in or around Bamyan, you have forgotten the around 2 million population of Hazaras in Iran and around a million in Pakistan and hundreds of thousands in Europe, Americas and Australia and I have personally been to those places with major Hazara population and they don't speak Dari at all. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 05:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And the Persian-speaking people should be replaced with Hazaragi-speaking people, reasons are obvious. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 06:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hazara Birar. As I said before, Hazara people generally have the distinctive physical admixtured features of Mongols and Turkic people. They are the mixture of Mongolic and Turkic people, but they speak a dialect of Persian language with Turkic and Mongolic words. In an encyclopedia, it is mentioned that there are several theories regarding the origins of the Hazaras. The most prevalent maintains that they are descendents of the soldiers and feudal lords of Chinggis Khan, the great warrior leader of the 12the century, who united the Mongol tribes and founded the Mongol Empire. The Hazara people generally have the distinctive physical features of Mongols. Hazar is the Persian word for "thousand" which may refer to the fact that the Hazaras arrived in their thousands, like the hordes of Mongol invaders in the 12lh century. However, other theories trace their origins further back to earlier migrants from Central Asia, possibly those of Chinese Buddhists or of Turkic Peoples or both. About their language, it is also said that Dari is the official name of the Farsi (Persian) language in Afghanistan, but the language of the Hazaras is known as Hazaragi. It is a mixed dialect of Farsi with some Turkic and Mongol words. Source: Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Read Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=stl97FdyRswC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en In the meantime, I don't claim all Hazara people speak Hazaragi, but I assert that the original language of Hazara people is Hazaragi. I have given a secondary source for it. The following expression is better:

Hazāra (Persian: هزاره) are an ethnic group who mainly live in central Afghanistan and Pakistan, speaking Hazaragi dialect of Persian language.

instead of your expression below:

Hazāra (Persian: هزاره) are a Persian-speaking people who mainly live in central Afghanistan and in Pakistan

-- BozokluAdam (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Birar: you are mixing up a few things. First of all, the mother-tongue of a people is the language they learn at birth and not what language their forefathers spoke 200 years ago. The native language of African-Americans is English and the native language of the majority in Anatolia is Turkish, even though their ancestors spoke some other languages 100, 200 or 300 years ago.

The Hazara are no different. You are totally wrong if you believe that the Hazara are a 100% pure Mongolian people. That is nonsense. Like all other peoples on this planet, the "Hazara", too, are a mixed people who, for various economic and religious reasons, lived more isolated than others and hence kept certain physical features of the Mongols. The Hazaras have, like all the rest in the region, different origins going back to the original Indo-European peoples as well as the various Semetic and Altaic invaders. By definition, the modern Hazara are an Indo-European(-speaking) people who speak the Persian language (and in Bamiyan and surrounding areas a unique dialect of it). It is totally unimportant for the intro what language the forefathers of the Hazara spoke 200 years ago. What about those ancestors of the Hazara who were not Mongols? Are we to list their languages, too? What about the population of Anatolia which adopted the Turkish language in the course of the past 500 years but was originally Greek and Kurdish (as one can see in the physical features of modern Turks who look more like Greeks and Kurds than the original Turks of Central Asia)? Does that mean that the Turks of Turkey are "not Turks" but actually "Turkish-speaking Greeks"?! That's not how an encyclopedia works.

The language of the Hazara is the Persian language. Like the many other Persian speaking peoples they, too, speak a few unique dialects. The claim that they are "Hazaragi-speaking" is unencyclopedic and wrong. The detailed information in regard of the Hazaras language should be mentioned in the respective section but NOT in the intro.

As for the number of Hazaragi-speakers: you are totally exaggerating. Hazaras living in Iran have by now adopted the Iranian dialects. Hazaras living in Herat (some of whom have married into my family) speak the traditional dialect of Herat (and do not even identify as Hazara), those in Kabul speak Kabuli. "Hazaragi" is a unique dialect which - I suppose - will be extinct in a few decades because it is not standardized and because it prevents Hazaras from higher education. --Lysozym (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, your claim about Turks of Anatolia is wrong. You claim that "Turks of Anatolia were the mixture of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds" is completely imaginative and baseless because there are still Turkmens, Azeri Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and Arabs in Anatolia. If a person is Kurd, he says he's Kurd. If a person is a Turk, he says he's Turk. All of them have their own culture, traditions and languages because Turkic dynasties and states have been tolerant and democratic against other people as far as they didn't betray. None of the Anatolia folks forgot their culture and language. However, in Iran, Azeri Turks, Turkmens and Kurds cannot have their own rights due to the racist-oppression of Iran government since the Turkic dynasties were destroyed, but in Turkey, the Ottoman Empire always gave rights to the minorities; and now the present Turkish government supports minorities and give them several rights to make them maintain their language and culture. Through the history, Turks governed Balkans, Turkey, Iran, and Arab countries, but they didn't oppress the other ethnic groups, so the Turks governed the Middle East in peace till the World Wide War. After Turks were thrown into background, the Middle East converted into an undemocratic area with a chaotic atmosphere. Tolerance was the muse of Turkic states in the past, so they could maintain great empires and states. By claiming Hazaragi were Persian, what are you trying to do? I think you are trying to make a propaganda of Pan-Iranism in most of the articles by claiming Hazaras, Uzbeks, Azeris, Kurds were all of Persian origin. So maybe you will also claim that Turks of Anatolia were also of Persian origin. Really you're ridiculous. Turk is Turk, Arab is Arab, Hazara is Hazara, Kurd is Kurd, Uzbek is Uzbek. Don't confuse the mind of people with your baseless propaganda in Wikipedia. Here is a scientific encyclopedia. And I'm tired of the other people's skull-racism propaganda on various nations. When I put forward this, several people accuse me of Pan-Turkism, but they ramble the subject. Our subject here is the Hazara people and their native language, Hazaragi, not Persian language. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To make it short: you claim to be a Turkologist, but your knowledge is that of a amateur. Claiming that Anatolian Turks are some kind of pure descendants of the original Turks is not only worng, but totally laughable. The same way that the Hazara's Mongolian physical features prove that the have a strong Turko-Mongolian imprint in their ethnogenesis, the Turks' Mediterranian and European physical features prove that they are overwhelmingly descendants of the original Non-Turkish population of Anatolia and the Balkans. The same way the ancestors of the Hazara adopted Persian, the ancestors of modern Turks and Azeris adopted Turkish. If the Hazaras are not a "Persian people" and have some kind of "original language", then that means that modern Turks and Azeris are not "Turkish people" and that their "original languages" should be listed in the intro. You are going by double standards, BozokluAdam - and that is totally unencyclopedic. Your claim about the "tolerance of Turkish rulers" ist just as laughable, keeping in mind that hundreds of thousands of people were either killed or moved by force during Ottoman rule, that thousands of Kurds and others were forced to register under Turkish names (--> Kurds in Turkey), or the Armenian Genocide. And that is just a few examples of the last centuries while the assimilation of the Oghuz had begun much earlier. Even 1000 years ago this process was observed by various scholars, such as Mahmud al-Kashgari who was himself a Turk and considered the Oghuz "fake Turks", because they had intermingled and mixed with Iranians and Arabs to an extent that he did not see much "Turkishness" in them. Ironically, it was these "fake Turks" of Kashgari who later moved into Anatolia and assimilated the original Greek, Kurdish and Armenian population. European politicians and scholars were making fun of this irony as late as the 20th century, noting that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the "father of the Turks", was born in Greece, was blond and had blue eyes - none of that being Turkish. --Lysozym (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lysozym, your claims are completely unencyclopedic and unacademic, which displays that you are acting the goat on Wikipedia. Claiming Anatolian Turks as the mixture of other nations is exactly an imaginative product of Persian vandals. According to the academic study of 15 years (1993-2008), the Ottoman census records of Anatolia (from 1453 to 1650) have been translated to the modern Turkish, and these records have displayed that there were more than 41.000 Turkic clans and 24 Turkic tribes in Anatolia, all the records classify the people of Anatolia into ethnic groups and their Turkic clans. According to all these written records of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, Turks were the most crowded people in Anatolia. So, based on these records, there are maps of 24 great Oghuz tribes displaying where the clans of Turkic people moved and settled in Anatolia. According to these Ottoman records, not counting the settled Turks, there were 984.377 households (families) of nomadic Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century; and if you count each household as eight persons, it shows that nearly 7.875.000 Turkic nomads (excluding settled Turks) lived in Anatolia at that time. Turkish tribes and clans had their own villages and cities, and they moved to great cities and outnumbered Armenian and Greek people. All the census, settlements and migration information had been recorded by Ottomans for centuries; and these records are still available to all the historians and researchers in Ankara. If you learn Ottoman Turkish, you can make a research of Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish or Greek population in Anatolia, by using the Ottoman census records. Today, there are hundreds of villages and towns called Kayi, Salur, Igdir, Bayindir, Bayat, Yazir etc, which are the names of important Oghuz clans. In later periods, there have been always conflicts between Turks and other ethnic groups of Anatolia such as Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Therefore, Turks lived belligerently with others and didn’t intermingle with them. As a result of these conflicts, in 1914, Armenian people have been forced to migration; Also in 1923, Greek people has been forced to migration to Greece, and the following years, the Turks in Greece and Bulgaria have been forced to migration to Turkey. Today, the Turks in Anatolia are ethnically and racially Oghuz Turks, and they aren’t any mixture of other nations. Oghuz Turks are physically aren’t similar to Mongols and they still maintain their own characteristic features. In this respect, the Turks of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan, Balkans, Gagauz and Turkmenistan are very similar to each others, physically, linguistically and culturally, because they are all Oghuz Turks and they aren’t so slant-eyed like the others such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs, who have been under the influence of Mongols. For example, some of the Salar people in China look like Chinese people (though they are also Oghuz) because they are partially intermingled with them. Even though some of them are intermingled with Chinese or Mongoloid people, they are originally Turks; the same way, you can't claim they are Chinese or Mongol. In other words, slant-eyed features are derived from Mongoloid and Chinese races to the Turkic groups, but it isn't a disqualification to eliminate them from Turkicness. On the other hand, all the historical records mention that most of the Oghuz Turks moved to Anatolia during the Mongol invasion of Aral and Khwarezmian steppes. As a result of the large migration of Turkic nomads, Turks outnumbered Anatolia, and didn’t intermingled with the Mongoloids. Whereas most of the Turkic groups helped Mongols, Oghuz Turks didn't confederate or ally with them. As the Oghuz Turks lived nomadically, they succeeded in escaping from the Mongol invaders and didn’t intermingle with them. Even just the clan of the founder of Ottoman House moved to Anatolia with a population of nearly 100.000 in order to escape the danger of Mongol invasion (Old Ottoman historians cite it). According to the Ottoman census records of 15-16th centuries, approximately 7.875.000 Turkic nomads lived in Anatolia, excluding the settled Turks. If you count and include the settled Turks, there were more than 10.000.000 Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century. On the other hand, about the genetics, let me say, the science of genetics is still developing and nothing is certain about the genes. Nobody knows the genes of Oghuz Turks who lived 1000 years ago. Maybe Persians received their genes from Azerbaijani Turks, who are originally Oghuz; or the people of the Middle East borrowed most of their genes from the Turks who invaded all those areas for centuries. Genetics hasn’t been a reliable source yet. So, you can’t determine an ethnic group with their genes. You just deceive yourself or fool others. You're unacademic; and nonsense to be in Wikipedia. Lastly, Wikipedia articles are under Persian vandals or desirous chauvinist boys of Persia, who fight for their Pan-Iranism aims. So, all these articles based on Persian ideas (not based on academical studies) are full of shit, and academically nonsense to care about. - 81.213.114.77 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Turkic states and dynasties have always been tolerant as far as the minorities didn't betray them. In the meantime, I don't want to discuss the origins of Turks in Anatolia because you're not professional in that area. However, I'll just say that each Oghuz tribes have their own names and signs; and today there are still the villages with those names of Oghuz branches, and you can find those Turkic Oghuz signs on the grave stones of dead people till 21th century. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, stop making propaganda of Pan-Iranism; otherwise, I'll not answer you. Our subject is about Hazara people and their native language, Hazaragi. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edit-war between Lysozym and اردیبهشت

The recent edit by اردیبهشت is not conducive, in contrast it is destructive. --Greczia (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This individual Lysozym's removal of sources from this article confirming the Hazara's Mongolian roots is disruptive and indicative of her apparent inferiority complex for her own people. Quite sad that this individual actually thinks that she can convert Hazara's from Afghan Mongoloids to being Peraian over the internet when this is just simply not reality, nor is it congruent with what is recorded about the Hazara's in academic and other sources. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:اردیبهشت is the one who is edit waring. He is trying to negate the important Iranian origins of the Hazara and the fact that they are a mixed people - a fact that is proven by their Persian language. For this, he continues to remove the reference to the Encyclopaedia Iranica. This act of obvious vandalism (for which he had recently been banned 4 days) has been reported to admins. It is also obvious that this user can neither read nor understand. The article does in no way negate the Mongolian (or Turko-Mongol) origins of the Hazara. It is in fact this racist user who does not want to accept that there in fact mixed people accross the planet. He seems to have extreme troubles with the fact that Persians mixed with peoples that are not white. --Lysozym (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not make unfounded accusations against other people and do not make assumptions about their intentions either. When you learn how to stick to facts and act like a normal human being you will no doubt find other people more receptive to you. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that you were recently banned for removing a reference to Iranica. And another fact is that you are doing the same thing again. It is also a fact that you are the one who has started this editwar by altering the once neutral intro (which did not include any reference to a supposed origin) and pushing for your unencyclopedic and racist POV. You need to learn that every people on this planet are mixed people and that the Hazara and Persians are no different. Racist propaganda will not be ignored. --Lysozym (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that all the Hazara people are Mongols. In the early 16th century Babur mentioned that some Hazara people used Mongolian language so that means that only some may be Mongols. Abdul Hai Habibi explains that the Hazara people probably lived in Afghanistan before the invasion of the Mongols and that makes alot of sense. [3]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Habibi was not a real scholar and his works are almost universially rejected by real scholars. There is no doubt that the Hazara community emmereged after the Mongol conquest. Mongolian tribal names, such as Nikudari, etc, are an undeniable proof. However, the numbers of Mongols were very small. They setteled as nomads in the highlands of Bamiyan. More Mongols and Turko-Mongols came with the armies of Tamerlane. In the course of the next 500 years, they heavily mixed with local Persian and other Iranian peoples who were settled peoples. The product of this mix are the modern Hazaras and Aimaqs, as well as those Tajiks, Pashtuns and others who have strong Mongolid physical features. The "Hazara" identity is not a racial identity, as this racist user is claiming, but a political one: a political union of various tribes who are distinguished by their stronger Mongolid features as well as their Shia faith - a strong contrast to their Sunni neighbours, including Persian-speaking Mongolid Tajiks who look like Hazaras and speak like Hazaras, but are followers of the Sunni madhhabs. --Lysozym (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nasir. Absolutely, they are not 100% Mongols. But stating that they, as a group, are of Mongol descent is keeping in line with what is stated about the Hazara's in academic sources. It is a widely accepted fact, one that can be plainly seen in all of the sources, that the Mongol ancestral base is the foundation of the Hazara people. The Hazara's are heirs to the remnants of the Mongol horde that stayed behind in what is now Afghanistan. The loss of Mongolian language and absorption of some other ethnic groups into their population over time doesnt change this fact. There is only one inferioty complex riddled indiviual who keeps trying to conceal this fact from the article's introduction and her user name is Lysozym. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to everyone who in here suffers of inferiority complexes: namely the one who deletes a reference to the most authoritative source on the subject - not only in this article but also in others - because he cannot handle the truth. A short look into the excellent Iranica articles shows that there is no need to mention any supposed origins in the intro - simply because the Hazaras are NOT a "pure" people and do NOT have one origin. That's the reason why this racist person with inferiority complexes changed the original and neutral intro of this article. And why this uneducated user is frustrated with scholarly sources, so that he removes any reference to that scholarly source and replace it with a news-paper article about Afghan students in Mongolia. --Lysozym (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Iranica entry on Hazara's being re-included as that source too, confirms the Hazara's Mongol origins, as does the journal article on genetic studies which you try to conceal from the introduction here where it clearly states that: "A good, although surprising, example of concordance between the two systems is the Hazara, who claim to be the direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan’s army. The presence and time depth of the Y-chromosomal haplogroup C* (xC3c) in the Hazara, along with its absence from neighboring populations, has been interpreted as the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan and his male relatives".[4]. The media report, with video that also confirms the Hazara's clear Mongoloid / East Asia roots, merely confirms the academic sources and highlights the point that in Mongolia too, there are NGO's and other foundations that are welcoming back the Hazara's to Mongolia to study given that Mongolia is their original homeland. اردیبهشت (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Habibi was not a real scholar and his works are almost universially rejected by real scholars."? First, that is untrue and secondly it is a very stupid statement to make about a professor who dedicated his life to Afghan studies. Professor Habibi, who is from the old school, has prepared a very good piece on the Hazara people. [5] Secondly, this new jack, Professor Alessandro Monsutti, is saying the same thing in the Iranica article as Habibi.[6] There is no other evidence except that before the Mongol invasion in the 13th century the Hazara area was inhabited by Turkic people, and before that by the Hephthalites. So obviously all we can come up with is Turko-Mongol origin.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC9

Abdul Hai Habibi is neither accepted as an expert on the Hazara nor on Afghanistan as a whole. He is strongly associated with Pashtun revisionist nationalist idiology and is notoriously known for fabricating the Pata Khazana. The site you have posted above is filled with confabulations. Habibi's fame is based on the fact that he and his pseudo-scientific theories were protected and propagated by the Pashtun nationlist governments of Afghanistan. Outside Afghanistan, he is a nobody and is universally rejected. You won't find a single Non-Afghan expert supporting Habibi. And your claim that Habibi says the same thing as the Iranica article proves only one thing: that you have neither read Habibi nor the Iranica article. As for the Hephthalites: since Prof. Enoki's ground breaking work on the Hephthalites it is generally known that this confederation was mostly Non-Turkic, Non-Altaic and Non-Mongolid. Sims-Williams' very recent excellent work on the Bactrian documents proved Enoki to be right: the Hephthalites were another East Iranian, mostly Caucasian, semi-nomadic confederation in Central Asia with some but relatively unimportant East Asian admixture. Habibi should have known this, since Enoki published his work in 1959. That again proves that he had only basic knowledge of certain themes and then simply confabulated the rest - that's the reason why he is being rejected by Western experts. The "Hephthalites", however, survived the Perso-Turkic (a coalition between the Sassanid Persians and the Göktürk Khaqanate) onslaught and survived in the Hindukush Mts. Their name still survives in the Pashtun tribal name Abdali (--> Haphthali), as does their language, modern Pashto, that is a Northeastern Iranian language and has its origin among the Hephthalite coalition who came from the north. That is perfectly in accordance with the discoveries of Sims-Williams: the Hephthalites used Bactrian and Greek as official languages, but did not speak Bactrian themselves. Their Eastern Iranian language contained a fairly large amount of Altaic words foreign to Bactrian, such as "Khan", and their tribal union consisted of certain Altaic/Turkic tribes, such as the Khalaj (--> Khalji) whose name has survived to this day as "Ghilzai". --Lysozym (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Habibi's article is titled "Is Hazara An Ancient Word?", he is focusing on the "words" Hazara, Hu-sa-la and O-za-la, which were mentioned by Ptolemy and Xuanzang over 1,400 years ago. Is this discussed by any other scholar? Since you asked me who Monsieur Fushe is in the edit summary, that means you don't know all the people who have done research on Hazaras. Habibi mentioned his name so obviously he must have been someone involved in the research. Your theory on Pashtuns, which is a different ethnic group, is not new. Others have addressed these already but the fact is that Pashtuns are not one ethnic group. It is itself a multi-ethnic society formed into one group today. Before the 20th century, you don't hear much about Pashtuns but mostly "Afghans", and that should be proof enough. The same is the case with Tajiks and possibly Hazaras as well. You failed to explain who rejects Habibi as a scholar. If you have a personal issue with him, that you have to keep to yourself. In Wikipedia a scholar should not be rejected based on his nationality or ethnicity. He did not fabricate Pata Khazana because according to him he obtained it from Alama Abdul Ali Akhundzada Khaalozay Kakarr in Quetta, Pakistan, in 1943.[7] There is no supporting evidence to believe what's in the manuscript and there is no evidence to reject it because the Pashtun people did have a language in the 8th century unless you think they didn't.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Habibi is not rejected because of his ethnicity, but because of his unscholarly approaches and his extremist ethnocentric revisionst views. There are many such revisionist pseudo-scholars all around the world, some of them are generally rejected (like Habibi), others do have some good works (like Zeki Velidi Togan), but these works cannot be used as direct references in Wikipedia but need to be examined by specialists (Togan's works, for examples, are extensively analyzed by Roger M. Savory and only those parts that have been filtered by Savory are to be quoted). In Habibi's case, there is no serious scholar supporting his views. His works are not based on modern scholarly approaches, he simply compares words and confabulates. Hu-sa-la and O-za-la?! What a bogus! Even the theory connecting the Hazara to the Khazars (spelt and pronounced "Hazar" in modern Turkish) is more serious than his nonsense. Yet, both theories are pseudo-scientific nonsense, because there is not a single expert who doubts that the Persian name "Hazara" is derived from the Mongolian word for "thousand" as a reference to the military units of 1000 equestarian archers of Genghis Khan's army. The Hazaras cultural history, the many Turkic and Mongolian words in their dialect and the many reports about them prove that there is a considereable Mongolian imprint that cannot be denied - the Hazara's Turko-Mongolian roots are undeniable. Yet, what some users in here need to understand is that the modern Hazara community is not identical with that of 300 or 500 years ago. It is a new community that was formed in the process of Pashtun political domination in the past 250+ years. The once Mongolian core allied itself with various Non-Mongolian peoples in the region, many of them Shia by faith. The original Mongolian language was lost, the original Mongolian cultural traits were lost, the nomadic way of life was lost - all that remained was the Hazara tribal name, now almost synonymous with "Shia" (similar to Qizilbash). This new so-called Hazara community is mostly Non-Mongol origin, containing various Tajik, Turkoman and other tribes. Those that accepted Sunni Islam are known as Aimaq, among whom some tribal names are a testimony to their Non-Mongolian Iranian origins (Firuzkuhi, Jamshedi, and Taymani - names of well-documented Iranian tribal confederations of the Mongol era), and those who accepted Shia Islam continued to be called "Hazara". Any theory that is different from this consensus among scholars either needs to be sourced sufficiantly (i. e. by quoting real experts) or is to be dealt as pseudo-scientific nonsense. As for Pata Khazana: of course Habibi did not admit that it is a fabrication. But experts - including some with high reputation - agree that the work is a poorly written fabrication, containing amatuerish mistakes proving the forgery. --Lysozym (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still curious who this Monsieur Fushe is (keeping in mind that "Monsieur" is simply the French word for "Mister"). Since you claim to know better, please, enlighten us. --Lysozym (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Habibi or anyone else is rejecting the Mongol theory (1,000 = Hazara). However, it is as doubtful as all the other theories. If this was the case then all Mongols throughout Asia would have been called Hazaras but instead they were called Mongols or Moghuls, yet only the people in Central Afghanistan are called Hazaras. You again failed to name those who reject Habibi as a scholar, and who cares if other scholars support his view or not. He began work in the 1960s and died in 1984, and all those who did researches on the Hazaras lived before this time except Alessandro Monsutti, and according to his Iranica article on Hazaras it suggests that he must have reviewed Habibi's work. Those experts that you're talkig about believe that Islam is a false religion, so are we suppose to accept their view on that? Every group of people have own experts and sometimes their views are not accepted by other groups. We can't be going around fighting over who is telling the truth or who is not. I'm not sure who Monsieur Fushe is, probably a name error. It is found here: "General Cunningham, in his book Geographical History of India (p. 40 and thereafter), corroborates this view and rejects the belief of Saint Martin regarding the ancientness of this word but Monsieur Fushe, in his book Iranian Civilization (p. 42), discusses the issue of Hazarajat and states: "Hazara in the Persian language means a thousand and since Ghenghiz divided his troops in companies of 1000 men therefore Abu al-Fazl, the writer of the History of Akbari, states that these mountain dwelling people are a part of the Ghengiz armies who stayed in the area. Other writers after him have repeated the same statement without asking how can an army of 1000 people stay in such a harsh land and how did they form such a large group of people. The doubt raised by Monsieur Fushe rings true and we cannot doubt substantial historical reasoning as a result of a weak and unsubstantiated statement made by Abu al-Fazl and his followers."--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

All we know for sure is that before the Mongol invasion, Central Afghanistan, was inhabited by Turkic people and ruled by Khwarazmian/Delhi Sultanate, prior to that by the Ghorids, prior to that by the Ghaznavids, prior to that by the Hephthalites, and prior to that by the Kushans. It is likely that the ancestors of modern-day Hazaras came from northern China as the Kushans and mixed with local Turkic tribes as well as later invaders such as the Mongols.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"All we know"?! No, we do not - or at least you don't. What is now Central Afghanistan was not inhabited by Turkic peoples. Of course, there has always been some influx of Mongolid peoples in the region. But the vast majority of the population was Non-Mongolid by race and Iranian by language. The Turkic military elite of the Islamic era was a small minority, in many cases mixed with local Persians and other Iranians (such as the Ghaznavids; Sultan Mahmoud had a Persian mother). Even after the Mongol conquest, that mix continued. One of the best examples would be Shahrukh Mirza whose father was the Mongol conqueror Timur and whose mother was a Persian concubine (hence, his look was a mix between Middle Eastern and Mongolian, as reconstructed by Soviet experts). The claim that the Kushans were Mongolid is pseudo-scientific nonsense, for the Kushan were Indo-European Tokharians and, unlike their Iranian neighbours, mostly blond, light-skinned and blue-eyed. They belonged to the same people as the Tarim mummies. Habibi's "theory" is pseudo-scientific nonsense and is rightfully rejected as nonsense by all major experts. As for "Mr. Fushe": do not blindly copy, especially not from an unreliable source like Habibi. --Lysozym (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"All we know" means this is what all historians tell us and we must accept that. The Kushans came from northern China, see map for details, and never even seen India in their life when they were living in Afghanistan. It is from there they invaded India and over 1,000 years later they became known to historians as Indo-Europeans. All sources say that before the Mongol invasion, Central Afghanistan was inhabited by Turkic tribes, northwestern Afghanistan by Persians, and southeastern by Afghan tribes, this is reported by a number of Chinese scholars who actually visited the area followed by Arabs and many others. It doesn't matter what language these people spoke or what religion they practiced and/or who ruled over them. Not all Hazaras look Mongolian, many of them look like the Kushans, look at images of Hazaras at google image search and else where. The only reason you oppose Habibi is because he is Afghan and not a European. You came here and began lying that he is rejected as a scholar and I keep asking you who are these people but you keep failing to explain. I'm not a follower of Habibi and you shouldn't be looking down upon him just because he is Afghan. I agree, however, that many Afghans see things differently but in Habibi's case he provides us with very good references. At the same time, many Westerners sit in their offices, drink wine and write books on Afghanistan. Alot of them never been to that country, they rely on reading previous works. What is "Habibi's theory"? He is just informing us about 2 words (Hu-sa-la and O-za-la) that were mentioned by scholars 1,400 years. You shouldn't force your belief on others.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To make it short: your claims are unscholarly and are based on finge and unreliable sources. You should make yourself familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. This is not a place to propagate nonsense. You should read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTHERE. Habibi is an unreliable source and his works are mostly confabulations and hence not accepted by the vast majority of experts. Your claim that "all sources say that before the Mongol invasion, Central Afghanistan was inhabited by Turkic tribes" is complete nonsense and proves that you have no idea of the topic. So what sources are you talking about?! You do not have the qualification to judge whether Habibi's sources were good or bad. You blindly copy his works and try to establish him as some important scholar - but the truth is that all he is known for is forgery and fringe theories. He is such an unimportant person that the Encyclopaedia Iranica does not even have an article about him, although it contains biographies of various (serious) Afghan scholars. I reject Habibi because he is an unreliable source. You, on the other hand, stubbornly support everything he said simply because he was a Pashtun and propagated ethnocentric Pashtun nationalist ideas. You won't be able to find a single serious work by scholars supporting Habibi. Hence, his pseudo-scientific fringe theories won't be tolerated here. EoD. --Lysozym (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you keep talking about Habibi? What does my latest edit has to do with him? I didn't even know that he was an ethnic Pashtun. You proved it now that you judge scholars by their ethnicity. This is wrong, take a chill pill on that. I'm citing Alessandro Monsutti (Encyclopædia Iranica) where he sums it up by telling us that: "Among the Hazāras themselves, three main theories exist: they are of Mongolian or Turko-Mongolian descent; they are the pre-Indo-European autochthones of the area; or they are of mixed race as a result of several waves of migration."[8] Are you now disagreeing with this too?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not try to fool us, Nasir Ghobar. You know exactly who Habibi was and what he stands for. It is not a coincidence that your edits in the article Pata Khazana are exactly the same as those of banned User:Lagoo sab in 2010 (a comparison: your edit vs Lagoo sab's edit). This POV-version was already rejected by User:Sommerkom, a German speacialist on Pashto literature and language and the main author of the article (see [9] and [10]). --Lysozym (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most authoritative academic work on the subject: "The term “Iranian” [...] is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language." [11]; Ethnolinguistic map of Afghanistan provided by the Columbia University: the Hazara are classified as "Iranian"; another map, this time provided by the University of Texas, again classifying the Hazara as an Iranian people. As for the origins of the Hazara, see the article "Afghanistan: Ethnography" in Encyclopaedia Iranica: "They are physically Mongoloid, but admixture is common in the ethnic gray zones. [...] Their ancestors may have arrived in Afghanistan from Chinese Turkistan within the period 626-850/1229-1447." [12]. So, in all cases, Nasir Ghobar's POV is contradicted by mainstream academic sources. --Lysozym (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not here to fool you or anyone else. I asked you who rejected Habibi as you kept claiming but you FAILED in naming a single person. Now you're accusing me of being someone who edited the Pata Khazana article 2 years ago. My first edit in that article was after you did this mass removal of sources [13]. I see you either using other names or emailing friends to help you in your edit-war. I don't have time for silly games. If you don't know how to discuss issues don't act like your an expert because you're NOT. You're just another edit-warrior wasting time on Wikipedia.

2. The way you add the information in Wikipedia wrongly makes people read that Hazaras are Iranian (citizens of Iran), but historians reject this. There is no Iranian language, it's called "Persian". The experts on hazaras clearly say that their origin is uncertain but just theories but it is only you who calls them Iranian.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Failing to name you who rejected him?! What are you talking about?! Have you actually read the article Pata Khazana?! Habibi is fully rejected by David Neil MacKenzie who proved his forgery by exposing his amateurish mistakes. Besides that, it is not our duty to prove Habibi wrong (since he is generally rejected in the academic world). It is the duty of the author to prove his sources reliable. And so far, you have totally failed.

2) The meanings of Iran, Iranian, Iranian peoples etc. are clear and Wikilinks help to clearify that. "Iranian" and "Iranian peoples" are the accepted linguistic designations in academic literature. And hence, Wikipedia will use the same vocabulary. Honestly, educate yourself. Read Iranian languages, Iranian peoples and Greater Iran. There are plenty of academic sources given in those articles. How are you going to improve this project while you seem to lack the most basic knowledge required in this subject?1 Besides that, your comments above clearly prove that you have a political, anti-Iranian agenda. And that is not acceptable. --Lysozym (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. English is my main language and all I do is re-write poorly written introductions. It is unencyclopedic to start an article like this: "Hazāra (Persian: هزاره‎) are a Persian-speaking people of mixed Irano-Mongol[7][8] background who mainly live in their native Hazarajat region in central Afghanistan." That reads as if the editor is forcing the readers to accept this as 100% fact. What exactly is "Irano-Mongol? I never heard of this newly invented term before. The sources do not even support that nonsense term, and "Hazara" is a town in Pakistan as well as another group of people. So it is important to clarify for the readers that we are dealing with a specific "Hazara people", which is an ethnic group in Afghanistan. It is proper to explain about their origins in the 2nd paragraph. That would make it a professionally written introduction. Remember when I explained this to you in the Ghaznavids article? Others have agreed with me.

2. There is no need for you to teach me when I already know Iran, Iranian, Iranian peoples etc. It is the readers who need to know this and that is done by explaining it to them step by step. Most people who read Wikipedia are students. I've told you and others that I'm not anti-Iranian. I have some Iranian friends, and I know how they think. They often feel paranoid and assume that everyone is after them in a negative way. To counter this fear, the Iranians are doing their online jihad by connecting as many different ethnic groups as they possibly can with Iranians. They do this with the first leading line in the introductions. To many of us this is very annoying and disruptive.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hazaras/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article has several subsections, but could benefit from being expanded more along the lines of the WikiProject Ethnic Groups article template. More thorough listing of reference sources is needed, along with more inline citation. -Fsotrain09 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

== Number of Hazaras in Afghanistan == ≈10500000

The introduction is misleading because it states that Hazaras make up 9% of the population of Afghanistan, which is the latest Factbook (CIA) estimate. However, it also states 18% and cites a Pakistani guy, Kamal Hayder, who just mentioned this but without providing a reference [14], and an outdated 1997 Library of Congress Country Studies report [15], which is based on the 1997 Factbook (CIA) estimate that has been changed to 9% since 2004.[16]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kamal Hyder likely came here to Wikipedia on 12 November 2011, saw the 18% and added that number in his news report and then Ehussain cited Hyder's news report as an additional reference the next day. [17] However, the 18% is the outdated 1996 Factbook estimate and we should remove this because it is misleading, it contradicts the latest Factbook 9%.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you guys know how to count ??? Why there is 7.7 M Hazaras in Afghanistan ??? That will make 26 % of Afghan population into Hazaras !!! The CIA Factbook says 9 %, which will make 2.7 M ! Even if you count 18 %, which is a ridiculous Pakistani lie, that would still not be 7.7 M !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Syrian and Iraqi populations

This article claims that there are populations in Iraq and Syria, but the Wikipedia page mentions nothing about this. Esn (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Do the Khazars have any relation to the Hazara people?

Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Myeirs (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hazara are Persian

They have Mongoloid phenotype, but in every aspect they're are Persian. There is no "pure Persian" left in the world. Anyone who speaks Persian as his native language is Persian. Pure Aryan Persians are dead and extinct a long time ago. --188.158.111.221 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Iranian peoples don't think that Hazaras are Iranians/Persians. View of the Hazaras same. The most of the Hazaras identify themselves as Mongol or Turkic. Own ehnic identity of them just "Hazara", not Mongol, not Turkic and not Iranians. Myeirs (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Hazara people → Hazaras – "Hazaras" is the WP:COMMONNAME for these people per Ngram. "Hazaras" is an unambiguous and plural demonym. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups. And it is more WP:CONCISE than "Hazara people". Per Tajiks, Koreans, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Germans, Swedes, Russians, Serbians, and many other titles of similar articles. Khestwol (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom GregKaye 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. Khestwol (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support – The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE and natural. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Genetics

[18]. Where West Meets East: "The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor: A good, although surprising, example of concordance between the two systems is the Hazara, who claim to be the direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan’s army. The presence and time depth of the Y-chromosomal haplogroup C* (xC3c) in the Hazara, along with its absence from neighboring populations, has been interpreted as the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan and his male relatives (Qamar et al. 2002; Zerjal et al. 2003). Our results indicate that the Hazara are also characterized by very high frequencies of eastern Eurasian mtDNAs (35%, table 2, fig. 1), which are virtually absent from bordering populations, suggesting that the male descendants of Genghis Khan, or other Mongols".

In the heartland of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic landscape of Central Asian populations: "Our study confirms the results of Li et al's study that cluster the Hazara population with Central Asian populations, rather than Mongolian populations, which is consistent with ethnological studies.(Dupaigne B: L'artisanat Hazâra; in: Paysage du centre de l'Afghanistan – Paysages naturels, paysages culturels. CEREDAF: Paris, 2010, pp 212–222.) Our results further extend these findings, as we show that the Hazaras are closer to Turkic-speaking populations from Central Asia than to East-Asian or Indo-Iranian populations". Li JZ, Absher DM, Tang H et al: Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation. Science 2008 (myers.hudsonalpha.org/documents/LiAbsher-SOM-HGDP.pdf) "Hazara from Pakistan and Uyghur from Xinjiang...are close genetic neighbors, suggesting a common ancestry despite their current geographic separation". Li JZ, Absher DM, Tang H et al: Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation. Science 2008; 319: "Hazara and Uyghur share a same profile of combined South/Central Asian, East Asian, and European ancestry".

[19]: Eastern Eurasian - 43%: Haplogroup C-M217 (C3) 33,3%; N 1,6%; Q 6,6%; O 1,6%. (C-M217: 40% - Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R. (2006) Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists). [20].

Western Eurasian: Haplogroup J-M172 (J2) 26,6%; R1a 6,6%; E1b 5%; G2a 3,3%. Haplogroup_R-M173#Subclade_distribution 32% (Sengupta 2005). J2: 20,6% (Haber M, Platt DE, Ashrafian Bonab M, Youhanna SC, Soria-Hernanz DF, et al. "Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events", 2012). B-M60: "In Afghanistan, Haplogroup B-M60 has been found in 5.1% (3/59) of a sample of Hazara males"(Haber et al, 2012). 217.172.172.200 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Persian-speaking

The sentence read "The Hazaras are a Persian-speaking people" to distinguish the Hazara from Turkic speaking peoples from the same region. As with most Persian dialects, the language is called Farsi by speakers, and occasionally Dari. Hazaragi is only the name of a dialect. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?

If you're interested, participate and write your comment here: RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? --Zyma (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Mongolian"?

Just how are they "Mongolian"? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Husayn Hazara and edit warring since 28 July 2016

@Husayn Hazara: Why you don't read our edit summaries and WP rules. Please stop edit warring and your disruptive edits. If you HAVE reliable sources for your stats, just add them to article. DO NOT remove/manipulate current referenced content. You can discuss your concerns on talk page instead of non-stop edit warring. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "PCA" abbreviation

Does anyone know the meaning of the abbreviation PCA near the beginning of the article? It would be good if it could be written out with the abbreviation following per the Manual of Style and I couldn't find anything that was clearly the original phrase. Thank you Bobdog54 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

Please change the following: It is estimated that more than 62% [30] of the Hazara population were massacred or displaced during Abdur Rahman's campaign against them.

To the following: The aftermath of the uprising was a genocide at the hands of Shah Adbur, who wiped out more than half of the entire Hazara population, and caused a myriad of people to be driven out of their villages (https://dtsjournal.com/2016/04/01/the-mongol-hazaras-in-afghanistan/). Prior to the genocide, Hazaras made up more than half of Afghanistan’s total population (https://dtsjournal.com/2016/04/01/the-mongol-hazaras-in-afghanistan/.

The former text lacks depth, and it is important to note the significance of this dire event in the history of the Hazara. Rasa5353 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NPOV This change would imply number is known. If this is the case please provide valid sources that don't come under WP:OR or WP:BLOGS. — IVORK _Discuss 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Rasa's link is from a blog that uses sources from other writers and his link on Hazara's supposedly being more than half the population is coming from the (Minority Rights Group International) 2008 which is neither has historical substance or seen as a reliable source. How can Hazara's have made up half the population of Afghanistan if the Mongols settled only a thousand of their troops inside Central Afghanistan in the first place? Why does Babur's memoirs mention Hazara's as a minority compared to the dominant Pashtuns. I'm afraid Mr. Rasa's links are nationalistic POV nonsense which do not pass Wikipedia's good faith law. Akmal94 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazaras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=these
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228003012/http://www.cal.org/co/afghan/arelig.html to http://www.cal.org/co/afghan/arelig.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Original Language of Hazara People is Hazaragi.

The original language of Hazara people is Hazaragi (Dari, the official language for Persian in Afganistan). So Hazaragi should be emphasized there, which is spoken by the minority of Hazaragi people. Let me give an example. Azerbaijani is a dialect of Turkish language, but we say that their language is Azerbaijani instead of Turkish. The same way, Hazaragi is the original langauge of Hazara people (we can't say their language "Persian"); Hazaragi is a dialect of Persian language. -- BozokluAdam (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(Lysozym), I observed that you have changed the article without a consensus. In the meantime, you claim that the native language of the Hazara is the Persian language? Check the article Hazaragi language. It says Hazaragi (Persian: هزارگی ‎) is a dialect of the Persian language spoken by the Hazara people, most of all in an area known as the Hazarajat. Please be objective. -- BozokluAdam (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hazaragi is a DIALECT, NOT a language. By definition, the Hazara are a PERSIAN-SPEAKING PEOPLE of whom many (but NOT all) speak the Hazaragi dialects of Bamiyan. Educated Hazaras, namely those who live in larger cities, work in educational or governmental institutions, do NOT speak Hazaragi. --Lysozym (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So, can you say Azeri are a TURKISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE in the same way? Because Azeri is a dialect of Oghuz branch of Turkish language. Hazaragi might be a dialect, but it's different than Persian in several aspects. And it's spoken by native people of Hazara. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Of cousre the Azeri are a Turkish-speaking people. In fact, this is a very good example. Because the Azeri and the Turks of Anatolia have the same position within the Altaic ethno-linguistic group that Hazaras have within the Iranian group: a people who were slowly but progressively assimilated. The ancestors of modern Turks and Azeris were Kurds, Greeks, and other Non-Turkish people who gradually adopted a Turkic language and mixed with the dominant and ruling people (in this case Turkish nomads from Central Asia). The case of Hazaras is slightly different: they were assimilated by the native people with whom they mixed. The Hazaras are as much "Persian" as modern Anatolian Turks are "Turks". Who cares what the "native language" of Anatolian Turks was 200 years ago?! Modern Turks learn Turkish at home - it is their first language and that's what makes them "Turks". Why should the case of Hazaras be any different?! Besides that, I really doubt that you are an expert on the subject. You do not speak or understand Persian or any of its dialects. Australian English is also much different from Texican slang, yet both are English. Alemannic German is almost incomprehendable to native German-speakers from Northern Germany, yet no one would claim that the peopel of Stuttgart are a "separate ethnic group" who speak "Alemannic". Of course many speak Alemannic, but it is not more than a unique dialect of German. The same goes to Hazaras, Tajiks, Iranian Persians, Aymaq, etc - they all speak different dialects of the same language. The written form of all dialects is the same - it is standardized. Hazaras living in Iran have by now motsly adopted the Iranian dialects. Here is an example: Elaha Sorour, a Hazara singer, speaks with an Iranian dialect even in interviews with Dari-speakers. --Lysozym (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So, that's a way of Pan-Iranism, bringing forward such a ridiculous claim that "the ancestors of modern Turks and Azeris were Kurds, Greeks, and other Non-Turkish people who gradually adopted a Turkic language and mixed with the dominant and ruling people (in this case Turkish nomads from Central Asia)". Oh, I notice that you, Persian nationalists, should be afraid of 38 million Turks of Iran, who can revolt against Iran, in a possible military intervention of the USA, Israel or Turkey. So you are claiming ridiculously that Azeri Turks were of Persian, Kurdish or Greek. And these claims are baseless political views of you. That's a kind of Pan-Iranism to melt all ethnic groups, even Turks, under the Persian ethnicity. I don't believe that you're an objective Wikipedian. Your old changes, by Tajik, also display that you're trying to sell your nationalistic thoughts by editing the articles baselessly or intentionally. Here's a scientific encyclopedia where the scientific findings are spoken and discussed, not your personal thoughts based on ideology. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, stop making propaganda of Pan-Iranism. Our subject is about Hazara people and their native language, Hazaragi. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

He did not say "that Azeri Turks were of Persian or Greek". twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You turks truly are shameless, you use the "language" definition of ethnicity when it suits you, and you use the "ancestry" definition when it suits you, make up your mind already. You can't claim that Azeris are Turkic because of their language and then claim Hazaras are Turkic also because of their ancestry/race. And Turks in Iran are 15 million, not even close to 38 million, but then again lying is second nature to a pan-turkist propagandist. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or should I start mentioning the 42 million Kurds in Turkey, that have been fighting for independence in Northern Kurdistan? That's the kind of pan-turkism, to claim as much as possible as your own ethnicity, even if you contradict yourself a thousand times, even if you have to claim Persian-speakers as your own ethnicity. And Iranian Persian and Hazara Persian are a thousand times more similar than Anatolian Turkish and Azeri Turkish. 2607:FEA8:5AC0:61:2099:828C:160D:ACAB (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the statement "the ancestors of modern Turks and Azeris were Kurds, Greeks, and other Non-Turkish people" anything ridiculous. The Turkish migration is a well studied historical facts, start from the Seljuk turkish empire and the defeat of the Byzantium army in the year of AD1071. however, even after the battle, the influx of turkish tribes only contributed small part of the ancestors of today's turkish populations. Also, claim that the Hazara people are turks is pan-turkic theory, there aren't historical records that said some turkic tribes migrated to Afghanistan. however according to the ancient chinese books, there were mongolic people living in there long before the Ghengis khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apzat (talk • contribs) 09:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

^No ancient chinese authors mention that nor any book i know of. Mongols and Turks came from East Asia from the Altai Mountains and settled in Central Asia overpowering the native iranian population. As for Afghanistan, it has always been iranian dominated and eastern iranian people like the Pashtuns are native there and no recorded migration of turks and mongols have been recorded there. Hazaras came with Genghis Khan during the 12th century and their genetic tests agree with this. Akmal94 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Do Hazaras belong to Iranian ethno-linguistic group?

Their language is a variety of Persian and they were mentioned on Iranian peoples. Their relationship to Mongolian and Turkic groups are mentioned too. So what's their ethnic status? Because unlike the other ethnicity-realted articles, this one lacks ethnic categories except "Ethnic groups of partial Asian ancestry". Current categories: Shia Islam in Afghanistan, Hazarajat. I will add some categories. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Hazara are a Dari-speaking people of Turco-Mongol ancestry. Their dialect of Dari, Hazaragi, is sure part of the Iranian linguistic family, but I doubt you can say the same thing about their ethnicity.
Rye-96 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Akmal94 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Nasir Jafari (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

20% claim is false

Using Al Jazeera as a source to claim Hazara's are 25-30% of Afghanistan smells like propaganda to me especially since the writer of the article herself is Hazara. Not only that but all sources from Brittanica to CIA factbook and the Naval Postgraduate says Hazara's are no more than 7-9% of Afghanistan's population. Akmal94 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

Javad.Aryan (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

هزارگی، ساختار جداگانه از زبان پارسی ندارد، بلکه ساختارهای کهن زبان پارسی حفظ کرده است. در زبان نوشتاری پارسی، فعل گذشته و مضارع مستمر مانند «داشتم می‌رفتم»، «دارم می‌آیم»، نوساخت و گرته‌برداری شده از زبان‌های بیگانه است، اما در لهجه‌ی هزارگی چهار فعل گذشته و مضارع مستمر وجود دارد، مانند:

مستمر گذشته:

درو می‌آمدم

درگد می‌آمدم

دریز می‌آمدم

زبیته می‌آمدم

مضارع مستمر:

درو می‌آیم

درگد می‌آیم

دریز می‌آیم

زبیته می‌آیم

در در اوستایی در صدف لهجه‌ی هزارگی، افزون بر حدود ۳۵ پسوند زبان پارسی، ۲۳ پسوند اختصاصی هزارگی را استخراج کرده‌ام، که با ورود به زبان نوشتاری، به غنامندی و واژه‌سازی زبان کمک بزرگی خواهد کرد.

زبان اوستایی در بین هزاره ها نشان میدهد ک آنها ب آریاییان نیز ربط دارند! که از هزاران سال پیش مانده است و تا حال نیز مورد استفاده قرار میگیرید!

hazara's language is depended to aryan(avesta) in our language there is no any turkish or mongolian words! just aryan(avesta)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazaras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313035046/http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/01/22/many-karzai-rivals-find-way-parliament to http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/01/22/many-karzai-rivals-find-way-parliament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

Talib Hussain Al Hassani (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Persian people No Mongolic or Turkic

--فدایی جوان (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We have DNA of Mongolian and we look like them did ever saw a Persian have children which is look like East Asian. Until they have DNA of Eastern Asian, It's not totally false that some Hazaras have Persian Mixture, they may have been mix with local Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talib Hussain Al Hassani (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• But Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks have one type of gene. And the Hazara culture is like the Tajiks and Uzbeks.

--103.42.2.42 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Most people in Afghanistan are like the people of eastern Asia, such as Tajiks and Uzbeks. Hazaras are still more Caucasian. The fact is that other people are mixed with Hazaras (not Hazaras with others). In the old days, the Hazaras were the majority in Afghanistan before the Mongol invasion. We now see that Tajik people are like Hazaras.

--103.42.3.21 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

Shar Shah-e-Hazara (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Abdul Ali Mazari with his followers in Bamyan.jpg
• Abdul Khaliq Hazara.jpg
• Dawood Sarkhosh (Hazara traditional style).jpg
• Group of Hazara Chiefs (616x510).jpg
• Hazara young boy.jpg
• Ibrahim Beg Hazara.jpg
• Nasrullah Sadiqi Zada Nili.jpg
• Wakil Hussain Allahdad.jpg
• نجیب الله خواجه عمری.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring: Infobox stats

@Akmal94 and Shxahxh: Both of you should stop current non-stop reverting game. Bring your concerns here and discuss them. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wario Man, the user Shxahxh is constantly reverting proper sources from the CIA Factbook to Al-Jazeera adding a nonsensical 15% claim. All sources on the Hazara population show them to be no more then 7-9% in Afghanistan. I believe he is a sock puppet account of Husayn Shah Mirza because their editing skills are the same. Akmal94 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Current revision of CIA Factbook does not show percentage of ethnic groups. Only spoken languages:

• Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 80% (Dari functions as the lingua franca), Pashto (official) 47%, Uzbek 11%, English 5%, Turkmen 2%, Urdu 2%, Pashayi 1%, Nuristani 1%, Arabic 1%, Balochi, Shughni, Pamiri, Hindi, Russian, German, French (2017 est.)

2014 revision, archived link:

• Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

So Shxahxh changed the stats without providing a new source. I'll fix it. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Much Appreciated! Akmal94 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• General Musa, Circa 1935 in a British Uniform.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Faiz Mohammad Katib Hazara.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Faiz Mohammad Katib Hazara.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What kind of ethnic group?

Since they speak an Iranian language, one can assume that they are an Iranic ethnicity, in addition origins have not been fully reconstructed. I have some citations giving evidence, shall I add it? Foxhound03 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Foxhound03: Would you mind sharing the sources? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Pakistani's Hazara's haplogroup O3

Hunan201p, Name me the reason why haplogroup O3 is not allowed to mentioned in the Hazara wikipedia page when haplogroup O3 forms 8-31% of Mongolian people and 5-19% of Central Asian 65% in the Kazakhs Naiman. This can easily be associated with Mongolic-Turkic expansion.

DerekHistorian (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war, a complaint should be filed to the admins. Please refrain, I believe the original version should be kept until a decision is made. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert to the original version of this article. It contains multiple lies. My edits are not warring and WP:JDL is not an excuse to revert my edits. People editing this page tried to make Hazaras look paternally East Eurasian with this fallacious statement: The most frequent paternal haplogroup types found amongst the Pakistani Hazara was haplogroup C-M217 at 40%(10/25) and Haplogroup O3 at 8% (2/25), both of East Asian and Siberian origin.[49].

It's amazing this stood for so long just based of mathematical improbability alone. Does anyone really believe the second-most common haplogroup in any ethnicity can account for a mere 8% of the total? This is trolling. The main paternal haplogroups among Pakistani Hazara can be seen at table 3 of the study, which I link here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB3/?report=objectonly

The distribution of haplogroups for Hazara are: J2a (1), I1c2 (1), Q1 (1), Q1a (1), R1b (8), R2 (1), C3 (10), 02 (2). It is obvious that O3 is not a frequent haplogroup among Pakistani Hazara. I even included a link to another reference summarizing the frequency of R1b in this study's sample od Pakistani Hazara: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622 "The most frequent paternal haplogroup types found amongst the Pakistani Hazara was haplogroup C-M217 at 40%(10/25) and Haplogroup O3 at 8% (2/25), both of East Asian and Siberian origin.[49]." -- Hunan201p (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• General Musa, Circa 1935 in a British Uniform.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hazaras makes up (20-25% of Afghanistan

Hazaras make 25% because only in Kabul city there are 30% of the population which make a million people. If Factbook saying that Hazaras make 9% they may count Hazaras in Kabul and what about province inside Hazarajat if you know Hazaras makes up 6 to 8 povince only in Daykundi there are nearly a million people which with Kabul makes up 2 Million and Ghazi Province of Afghanistan have 60 to 70% Hazaras which makes 800,000. People it's nearly 3 million people. Tell me now there are 1 to 1.3 Million Hazaras in Pakistan half of them don't have Hazaras any documents without any nationality. Which is also coming to Afghanistan and there a million more undocments Hazara refugees in Iran without those who living under asylum in Iran with Afghan nationality. There 3 million in Iran and 60% of them are Hazaras which means more Hazaras and there remaining Province in Afghanistan which have majority Hazara. and other cities in Afghanistan with million more Hazara who are living there. that's why Hazaras makes 25% of Afghanistan and not 9% Husayn Shah Mirza (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You're a troll and a vandal, i've had to constantly revert your edits because they are added with out reliable sources. At first you claim Hazara's make up 25% of the total population, then you say they are 30%? Total contradiction on your part. I'm gong to re-add the 9% again which from the Naval-Post Graduate since it is a reliable source unlike you Al-Jazeera one. Keep reverting it and you will get blocked. Akmal94 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you not blind he said above that Hazaras in Kabul make up 30% not in whole Afghanistan. Dear, Akmal94

It's true. At least hazara population is more than 8 million. It's very clear. Jefrium (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The government of Afghanistan intentionally give a lower percentage of Hazara people and any other nation in Afghanistan except Pashtons and Tajiks who control the government. They know if they give the real percentage of the population across the country, they would face with big problem of lowering their own shares in government. Still there are Hazara people usually in north of Afghanistan calling themselves Tajik and following Sunni faction of Islam. This is because of their scares from possible genocide against them from terrorist groups related to Taliban and any other do not want Hazaras be here.

Etymology

The Etymology section gives the conventional derivation (Persian translation of the Mongol word for "thousand"), with a source to back it up. There then follows a length (and non-NPOV) passage (added 22 Aug 2013) stating that this theory is weak, and claiming categorically that they are really named after on of Ghengis Khan's brothers - all without any source to back this up. It would be within policy to excise the whole alternative etymology, but I don't like deleting unsupported but seemingly plausible stuff without first checking with those more knowledgable. Does anyone have any RS to support this etymology, or should it be removed? Iapetus (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I readded the Qasar theory which you deleted without cause 7 years ago, with the fact that the last Shia claimant to the Ilkhan throne was from the Qasar clan of the Mongols. As there is no written history of the Hazara people, neither theories are verifiable. Hence, let's not delete my original theory. I've been there three times, and have spoken to many Hazara elders who considered it a possibility, but then again, without written history, no theories are verifiable, including the HEZAR (one thousand in Persian) theory Krusader6 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Demographics section

I see that the Demographics section has only the box "This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (March 2020)", but when i go to the history of that section there used to be a lot of content. Can we somehow restore this? There is most likely people that don't appreciate this group that is trying to troll their way on this page, and therefore some content may have been removed. This group of people are systematically being persecuted by groups like Taliban, Al-Qaida and IS, this is well documented and just last week we saw a spree of killings in Kabul targeting Hazaras.

Therefore i would argue that this page should be protected so that non-registered users cannot edit and damage it. --Vita in motu (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Vita in motu you can request so at WP:RFPP. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical error--please fix!

The current version of this article has a glaring and inexcusable grammatical error--yet it cannot be fixed because the page is for some reason protected from editing without there being any explanation for this at the top of the page.

One of the conventional theory is that => (should be corrected to): One of the conventional theories is that

173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Page cannot be edited -- please fix

I tried to add a simple Wiktionary link to a Persian term in this page, yet the page is for some reason protected from editing without there being any explanation for this at the top of the page. Please correct this ridiculous situation immediately. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t possible to edit false information Mario Demirovic (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Thousand is not called "ming" in Mongolian. It is called "myanga". 101.110.42.51 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources for the military unit being called "myanga". — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

True, 'мянга' (myanga) means thousand in modern Mongolian, but this derives from Classical Mongolian ᠮᠢᠩᠭ᠌᠎ᠠ᠋ (mingɣ-a), from Middle Mongolian ᠮᠢᠨᠺᠭ᠎ᠠ᠋ (mingɣ-a), per https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0 --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Questionable sources

@Jadidjw: Can you please explain how the sources used here are WP:RS? How are random newsites WP:RS for historical events?

"These campaigns had a catastrophic impact on the demographics of Hazaras causing more than 60% of them to be massacred."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jadidjw: I can see you have made several edits in the article since my comment here (including the restoration of more non-WP:RS content [21]) are you going to reply? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Very sorry my internet IP was blocked because I could not comment on you. All the sources I have listed are from reputable websites.--Jadidjw (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jadidjw: You did not answer my question. Please explain how these newsites are 'reputable' and how they are good to use as sources for historical events (how do they follow WP:RS?), when it isn't even written by academic historians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jadidjw: Please come with a (reasonable) answer or I will revert back to the original revision. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: This source is a PDF book. Please read the book to make this clear to you.--Jadidjw (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's still nothing that suggests that the source is WP:RS. Please click the link and read the guideline. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Please read this book. this book is written by contemporary Afghan writer Basir Ahmad Dowlatabadi.--Jadidjw (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ghazan et Öldjeïtu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Mongolic component

Hamkar 99, explain to me, please, why information based on reliable sources may be unacceptable? In my opinion, it is on your part that there is a violation of the WP:NPV rules. Look at what sources and what authors I refer to: Great Russian Encyclopedia - perfect valid tertiary source, Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Sabitov - both PhD, Averyanov, Sattsayev - Candidates of Sciences. All authors meet the requirements prescribed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

KoizumiBS, You have been purposefully editing Hazara articles for a long time. The edits you make have not reached a complete consensus. Please put this policy aside, my dear brother.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And how can I reach a consensus with you if you indiscriminately roll back all my edits? Achieving consensus is reaching a version that suits both parties.--KoizumiBS (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been seen that if anyone wants to edit, you cancel it. You do not allow anyone to correct or delete your edit. You cancel it under several pretexts.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you. All my edits are based on sources, not my opinion. And a big request not to deviate from the topic of discussion. Please answer better my question: why are you removing the Mongolian peoples template if the sources use terms such as "Hazara Mongols" (Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Barbara A. West) and "Hazaras - Iranian-speaking Mongols" (Averyanov). Presence both templates with Iranian and Mongolian peoples is explained by the rules described in WP:NPV and WP:CONS pages.--KoizumiBS (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear, Tell me why you consider the language and history of the Hazaras to be Mongol while they are a mixed race ethnic group. Please do not consider incorrect and secondary sources.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't call me "dear" without a noun. In the world, all ethnic groups are mixed to one degree or another. The authors of the sources decided that they were connected with the Mongols. Not me. And in general, you unreasonably called secondary sources incorrect. We must rely primarily on secondary sources. See the rules in WP:RSPRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hamkar 99 do you have a policy based reason to be reverting very well referenced material? At this point it feels more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any policy rationale. The sources seem clear, this is already mentioned and referenced in the article, and your edits could be considered disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail Greetings! There are many sources that do not endorse these sources. The important point is that the esteemed User:KoizumiBS has been promoting the Mongolization of the Hazaras for some time based on second-hand sources. I must say that the Hazaras are of mixed race. Thanks!--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in their edits where they claim otherwise. They're not removing the Turkic side, or any other theories as to their origins. They are also not claiming that they're solely of Mongol origin, just providing more details, sources and references for the claims that already exist. They're just adding that there's a lot of sources for the Mongol part and the sources appear to be sound. Based on Wikipedia's policies of Wp:Verifiable and reliable sources, there's no reason for these edits to be excluded. Again, can you provide a policy reason for their edits to be reverted and not included? Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, See[22] he has made some unacceptable and incorrect changes. For example, one of the changes is that the language of the Hazaras was Mongolian until the nineteenth century, which is not found in any first-hand sources. Thanks!--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So you have a question about the validity of one source, that’s not a reason to go around undoing all their edits, especially edits supported already by the article in question and other sources. Take that one source to WP:RS/N. I’ve not come across any decision that GRE is not reliable. And even then that doesn’t explain your blind reversions of all the other edits. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail Unapproved editing is not just a few. I mentioned the most interesting ones about the Hazara racial roots and the Hazara language. Thanks!--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Um hold on, what do you mean by unapproved editing? So you have zero policy reasons to revert the changes, fair enough that means KoizumiBS can reinstate them then yes? Canterbury Tail talk 01:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail That is, it has not been proven that the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the nineteenth century, or that the Hazaras were certainly of Mongolian origin. Thanks--Hamkar 99 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim otherwise, and as a result this falls into Wikipedia's reliable sources and WP:Verifiability policies. Since you've not come up with any policy reason, or any sources otherwise, this appears to be purely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT objection. Additionally please explain what you meant by "unapproved editing is not just a few". Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail User:KoizumiBS, who mentioned the term (Hazara Mongols) in the article, but Sayed Askar Mousavi in Hazaras of Afghanistan has stated that, so far, no document has been obtained by mentioning (Hazara Mongols) and no researcher has spoken about the Mongolian-speaking Hazaras.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If we turn only to the mention of the Mongolian language, then here are the sources and researchers: 1) Academician Bartold: "back in the 16th century, the Hazaras spoke Mongolian in the northern part of Afghanistan" (in Russian: "еще в XVI веке говорили хазарейцы по-монгольски в северной части Афганистана"); 2) Professor Masson, Candidate of Sciences Romodin: "Even in the 16th century the Mongolian language was widespread among the Hazaras, and a small part of them, apparently, spoke a language close to Mongolian as early as the 19th century".; 3) Professor Petrushevsky: "As is known, a large mass of the Mongolian population (Hazaras) formed on the territory of Afghanistan, partly retaining their language as early as the 19th century". 4) Great Russian Encyclopedia: "until the 19th century Hazaras spoke Mongolian". In addition, there are also linguistic data, historical sources, data on toponymy, as well as works on population genetics, which I can also quote.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I want to inform you that during the discussion I have not seen a rationale for deleting my edits from user Hamkar 99. I'm going to return them with minor adjustments. I guess that deleting sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP without a corresponding discussion in WP:RS/N is unacceptable. I guess that the subsequent removal of information from sources will represent a continuation of the edit war and WP:DE.--KoizumiBS (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Your sources and text are not claiming that this is 100%, just it's a strong thinking direction from some major scholars and sources and I feel it meets our policies and guidelines. At this point continued removal of sourced information, which is just an extension of what is already sourced and in the articles, with no policy or guideline reason would meet the definition of disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Mongolic and Turkic components

Jasoorth, the sources directly speak of the predominance of the Mongolian component: 1) Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov: "the Turkic elements compared to the Mongolian ones played a secondary role".; 2) The most common among the Hazaras is Y-DNA haplogroup C. According to sources this haplogroup certainly associated with the expansion of the Mongols. PhD Sabitov: "Y-DNA haplogroup C is certainly associated with the expansion of the Mongols"; PhD Zhabagin: "The high frequency of haplogroup C2-M217 is consistent with the purported Mongolian origin of the Hazaras." 3) Until the 19th century Hazaras spoke Mongolian.--KoizumiBS (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Outdated source

@Thepowefulhnation: Kindly dont edit war and take your concerns here - you need to establish WP:CONSENSUS. The source you're trying to add is 135 years old and contradicted by present-day WP:RS, including EI3 and Iranica. Kindly see WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:UNDUE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thepowefulhnation: Please stop adding more WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:UNDUE stuff into the article. Use the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thepowefulhnation: Third and final time I'm going to ask you to use the talk page. Can you explain how your addition doesn't go against WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:UNDUE? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: There are a lot of old resources in Wikipedia, so should all of them be removed?--Thepowefulhnation (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thepowefulhnation: This has nothing to do with the matter. Kindly answer my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I replied that authoritative sources by a well-known author should not be removed.--Thepowefulhnation (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thepowefulhnation: You're still not answering my question. How does your addition not go against WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:UNDUE? If you're not going to reply, I will restore the original revision, as no WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: This is the biggest question to ask why remove old sources? Thanks--Thepowefulhnation (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You would get your answer to that question and more if you actually clicked and read the guidelines I linked numerous times. This is the third time you're ignoring my question, this is clearly WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I will restore the original revision per WP:CONSENSUS. If you revert or attempt something similar without any consensus, I will report you to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Cannot remove well-sourced paragraph, especially not w/o explanation

Thepowefulhnation, hi. This concerns you removing here the information added by Artefactual here. It looks perfectly well-sourced and well-written, and you offered no explanation whatsoever (no edit summary). I have reinstated it, but moved it to the appropriate section, "Origin", because under "Genetics" it was indeed in the wrong spot. If there is anything you want to comment, please do it here before making any other radical edits to this paragraph. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Copy editing needed

This article needs copy editing and I have put it on my list to get to. I see the extended discussions here and I will be scrupulous in trying not to make changes to the substance of what I edit. I ask that if I make changes you disagree with, you will come here to discuss them before simply reverting them. Dgndenver (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)