Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan

Biased, unnecessary and unsourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To improve the article, it is better to correct unnecessary, unsourced and biased content. Minahatithan (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The User Minahatithan has stated in the edit history of the article, that he/she considers this article biased, because it gives the impression that all Hazara people were synonymous with slaves, which Minahatithan considers to be shameful biased slander against the Hazara people and Afghanistan. Minahatithan uses arguments such as "Slaves in Afghanistan were from all tribes and peoples. This article is really biased against an honorable people of Afghanistan". This is very strange, because the article simply does not claim all the slaves in Afghanistan was Hazara. On the contrary, the article clearly explains, in detail, that the slaves in Afghanistan could be of many different origins, Hazara simply being one of them. The source [1], among others, clearly states in detail that many (not all) Hazara were enslaved after the 1892 Uprising. Slavery was abolished in 1923, and by that time many of the slaves in Afghanistan were of Hazara origin due to many of them being enslaved during the 1892 Uprising. User Minahatithan appears to consider this biased slander, and that the article claims that all Hazara were slaves. This is simply not true, since the article does not claim that, it only claims that many of the slaves were of Hazara in 1923 because many Hazara were enslaved in 1892. This is referenced throughout the article and summarised at the top of it, were it also clearly states that not all slaves in Afghanistan were Hazara. Minahatithan seems to have read another article, because what they say, is simply not there in the article. For the benefit of other users, I will leave the reply here. --Aciram (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a better fix would be to emphasize the fact that while a majority of slaves were Hazaran, it does not mean that all slaves were Hazaran or that all Hazaran people were slaves.

Also, in the argument that having slaves makes Afghanistan look shameful, this argument does not make total sense as slaves existed in almost all societies and slaves still do exist in societies to this day. Many countries have histories of slaves, and while it might look bad for the country, nobody that actually enslaved the Hazara people are alive today. Furthermore, we shouldn't erase history just because it makes us uncomfortable.

Finally, and this is purely my opinion, the Taliban are bringing much more "shame" to Afghanistan than their slaves in the 1900s ever has. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I though the article already emphasized that, but maybe it is not clear enough. Because of the Uprisning of the 1890s it appears a majority of slaves were Hazara in the 1920s, but I do not think that was the case before the Uprising of the 1890s. And yes, of course, for what its worth, I agree; I don't think there's anything shameful about being a slave, rather it is being a slaveowner that is shameful. So its odd to consider it offensive of the Hazara to say they were enslaved. Its a strange way of looking at it in my view.--Aciram (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I do understand feeling a bit ashamed that your ancestors may have been slaves, but Wikipedia is an objective source. You can't erase history to make yourself feel better though. I do think his issue might be with the lede though. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope he/she would be satisfied with a rewritten lede, though it must be said that a user have been deleting non-lede mentions of the Hazara from the Swedish language version. I don't know if its the same person, but of course that made me think.--Aciram (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean I'm pretty sure an IP vandal was vandalizing the page first and then it switched to a user account. My suspicions are the IP created a user account, although without CheckUser I cannot be sure. RPI2026F1 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1: According to your edits, I thought you were an old user with credibility, but it became clear that you are new in Wikipedia and you don't have enough experience, that's why your information and your edits are not very accurate. Minahatithan (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You know, I try to do the best that I can with the limited amount of knowledge that I have. Most of my edits on articles other than reverting vandalism have been to update references from plain text/links to fully fleshed out references. As for changing the text of the article, I chose to maintain the status quo but rewrote the lede. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can reword this sentence though as well: "Until the 20th century, some of the Hazaras enslaved during the uprising were still kept as slaves by the Pashtuns; although Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan in the 1923 Constitution, but the practice carried on unofficially for many more years." It's a very awkward sentence grammatically and it's kind of confusing to read. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Its a little clumpsily worded, yes. The sentence "Until the 20th century, some of the Hazaras enslaved during the uprising were still kept as slaves by the Pashtuns; although Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan in the 1923 Constitution, but the practice carried on unofficially for many more years" can be changed to something like "Many of the Hazara enslaved by the Pashtuns during the Uprisning were still enslaved when Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan in the 1923 Constitution. However, slavery continued in practice for many more years after slavery had been formally banned", since that is after all the actual meaning. The present wording is a bit sloppy. --Aciram (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your reworded sentence makes much more sense, I was struggling to figure out the other one. Although, I do wonder if it's necessary to mention that the Pashtuns were the ones who enslaved the Hasara during the uprising in the Abolition section. I think that fact should be moved to the last paragraph of the History section. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not mind such a move and skip the word Pashtuns in that sentence.--Aciram (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Aciram, As slavery in Afghanistan is not a particular ethnicity and it can be among all its tribes, the slaves could have been mostly Pashtuns. But some judge Hazaras from (1888–1893 Hazara uprisings). If this is shameful or not it must be the truth. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, If you find evidence and sources about slavery and Pashtuns. We should not write false material in the article without evidence. This information about twenty-century slavery is highly added by a fanatical person in the article. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I was saing to get rid of it because it didn't feel relevant. Did you misread my comment? RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks dear User:RPI2026F1, No--Minahatithan (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@RPI2026F1: I request you to speak attentively and observe the decency of Wikipedia. When you say (ashamed that your ancestors may have been slaves), what do you mean by (ashamed)? My ancestors were their own owners they did not submit to humiliation. Please don't comment when you don't know anything, my friend. And do not judge someone from your own. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I was just trying to figure out your intent, and one of my theories was that you were Hazaran yourself, and that's why you had an issue with this article. Another theory is that you are Afghani but not Hazaran, and in that case you might not like the idea that your country enslaved so much of the Hazaranis back in the late 1800s. I only have limited information to work off of though. According to @Aciram you're misinterpreting the source, and since the sources in the area that you're deleting happen to either be deadlinks or books, I can't easily read them myself to find out. And if you're deleting things in spite of what the source says, I have to look for reasons why you would continue deleting. You don't seem like an obvious troll or vandal since you're targeting the section about Hazaranians specifically, and so I came to the conclusion that you have something personal about the topic. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am a Hazara and I know more about the history of my ancestors because some non-Hazara are trying to destroy the history of Hazara and they want to make it appear otherwise. My ancestors were always self-reliant and lived an honorable and zealous life. Although some of the Hazara groups lived in difficult conditions, but they never indulged in begging and debauchery. This is clear to People and ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Because their enemies felt danger and fear of them, in 1888–1893 about 60% of them were massacred and some were enslaved and emigrants but this issue does not show their weakness. This issue always happens to substantial, potent and powerful people and groups, as many groups of Armenians and Jews were enslaved and massacred. The persecution of Hazaras is not as you and some have made it out to be. Regarding the ancestors of the Hazaras, it should be said that the ancestors of the Hazaras were formed from great empires and dynasties. Some should add this to their own knowledge. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But this isn't the article about the history of Hazara. The article on the jewish persecution during the Holocaust for example does not talk about how the Jews once had King Solomon and the huge temples at Israel in like 900 BC, it talks about how they were being genocided during 1939-1945. This article about Slavery in Afghanistan is just like that, talking about all of the objective negative things about slavery. "A majority of Hazarans were enslaved after the uprising" is not an opinion, it's a fact. If >50% of the Hazaran population after the uprising was in fact enslaved, you can't deny that the sentence I just said is 100% factual. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You have just proven that you are not a neutral person in this subject. You have proven that you are biased, and want to censure the article in order to remove what you regard as something bad about one enthnicity. This is against Wikipedia rules. An article must be neutral. It should not censure certain things to make one group seem better or worse. It should not remove facts because those facts are considered to be shameful. Wikipedia is about facts, not about reputation, not about what is shameful or honorable. Wikipedia is neutral. This article is not about the history of the Hazara people. This article is about slavery in Afghanistan, and people and groups are mentioned in the article only in connection to slavery, nothing else. Now, it is a fact that a great part of the Hazara was enslaved after the Uprising in the 1890s and were therefore was still enslaved in the 1920s. In your eyes, it seems that you consider this shameful to the Hazara. What is shameful and what is honorable is a matter of culture. I am from Europe, and I don´t care about ethnic groups. I care about individuals, and in my country, we do not consider it shameful at all to be enslaved: we consider it shameful to be a slave owner. So your view about what is shameful and honorable is very different from what is considered shameful and honorable in my country. But the point is, it does not matter what is "shameful" and what is "honorable". That might be important in your country, but Wikipedia only care about facts, nothing else. You have called me "biased", but it appears that you do not quite understand what "biased" means. If you edit articles in Wikipedia from what is shameful and honorable, then it is you who are biased. You need to understand what biased means, because all your talk about shame and honor prove that you are biased.--Aciram (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Aciram, Please tell me when I said something about shamelessness???

You always judge what I say from your perspective. If I disagree with some false information without sources of the article, you will raise (shameful or honorable) why we have so negative views.

Now I can guess about you that you always prefer Europeans to others. You have a lot of negative views on Afghanistan. Ethnicity in Afghanistan is very fundamental to you. Like (Social Class). This is just my guess of you.

I am only opposed to a few sentences in the article. I read the source, I didn't find something what is in the article. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Every time you write here, you demonstrate, again and again, that you do not understand how wikipedia works, and that you do not understand what the word biased means. You attack other editors, you accuse them of being biased, you are biased in your edititing, and you appear not to understand that the arguments you use for your editing is biased. In this post, you insult me and accuse me of having negative viewes of Afghanistan, and why? Because I have said that I dislike the fundamentalist taliban and their abuse of women? Because I wish facts to be left in the article, when you wish them to be removed because of "shame and honor" and other non-neutral matters? Shame and honor is something you mention often, and see as reasons to why things should be removed from an article: but they have not importance in wikipedia whatsoever. You do not seem to understand what Wikipedia is, what being biased is, and you are being rude and insulting toward your fellow editors. And you do not appear to understand what it is you are doing wrong. You admit yourself clearly that you want to remove facts because in your view, they are bad for the reputation of one group. That proves that you do not understnad what the word "biased" means, because your wish proves, that you are biased. Clearly, you have proved so many times that you are biased, that you should never edit this article again. You should also appologize to me for your accusations. If you wish me to have a positive view of the fanatic fundamentalist Taliban theocratic dictatorship misogynist regime, then your are mistaken. No democratic person in the free world would view your request as reasonable, rather they would view it as laughable. -Aciram (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: The Taliban are terrorists and have made our country miserable. I do not argue for the Taliban because I hate them. But here's our discussion of something else. Minahatithan (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, But this is about a corner of Hazara history and nothing else.

Massacre and enslaving Jews and Armenians is very clear, you cannot deny it.

What you said (most of the Hazaras were enslaved after the uprising) is a completely wrong and wriong. Please read this article (1888–1893 Hazara uprisings) Majority of Hazaras about 60% were massacred and killed. Some of them were enslaved and displaced. Dear User:RPI2026F1, you cannot deny and rejected this. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is about slavery in all times, not Hazaran slavery only. And I meant that many of the people who didn't die became enslaved. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram and RPI2026F1: The issue of slavery in Afghanistan has not been so big that some think. The people of Afghanistan do not even think about it, but some Europeans see slavery from their point of view, because high -class Europeans have had many slaves in the past. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

... and whit that comment, you prove, yet again, that you do not understand what wikipedia is, how wikipedia works, what being baised is, and why you should not edit this article. This article is about facts. It doesnt matter what anyone thinks about slavery, it doesnt matter what anyones ethnic group has done in the past. It doesnt matter if Afghans think slavery was not a big matter. I am well aware what slavery has looked like in Muslim countries, and while it looked different, it was certainly not any better than slavery was in the West. But it doesnt matter if Europeans think it was horrible. Facts are the only thing that matters. Your are the one talking about feelings all the time. I dont care that you are a Hazara or a Taliban, and it doesnt matter that I am an European; and that you bring it up proves that you are even trying to weaponise ehtnicity. The only thing that matters is facts. You have, again and again, proven to us that your are baised, because in every comment you make, you talk about your own feelings, the honor or shame or reputation of this or that group, and being rude to people who dont agree with you.

First, you wanted to censure this article because you claimed it was disonorable for Hazara to have been slaves. Now, you suddenly claim that slavery is not a big matter and no Afghan people care about it. Anyone who reads this discussion and your comments in it, will see that your who argumentation is not consistent and does not ad up logically. Its seems to be very difficult for you to understand what your are doing wrong, because you keep doing it every time you post something here. You are also rude.--Aciram (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: When I said something bad to someone in a discussion, you are the one who accuses me of being biased, rude and should not edit this Wikipedia article. I hold no grudge against you or the other editors.

Yes this is dishonorable for Hazaras what you said (dishonorable for Hazara to have been slaves.) Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: I have to tell again that you guess only from (1888-1893 Hazara Uprisings).

In 1888-1893 about 60% of them were massacred and some were enslaved and displaced.

You don't have any reliable evidence or sources about living conditions of Hazaras in 1920s. And there is no reliable evidence about the slaves and in the 1920s which groups the majority and minority of the slaves belonged to. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

One of the sources does explicitly say that 700 Hazarans were freed after the abolition of slavery. I'm not sure how many Hazarans were in Afghanistan at the time, but 700 slaves is quite a bit. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@RPI2026F1: There is no source, it is just written by one or more Wikipedia users. The source is about Afghan women. Thank you very much! Minahatithan (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it not a reasonable interpretation of the source? The book mentions Hazarans. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I do think that the lede could be rewritten to not mention the Hazara specifically, since the actual events are only mentioned in one paragraph in the History section. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not mind a rewrite of the lede. The lede is suppose to sumarize the content of the article, so I think the enslavement of the Hazara in the 1890s-s1920s should be mentioned, but yes; maybe there was too much veight on that, compare to the rest of the article content. --Aciram (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Aciram, This happened in 1890s, but its circulation was limited at that times, not until 1920s. And there is no reliable evidence and documents about it in 1920s. please don't judge me again about my intention. I am not saying this from own feelings. Thanks!--Minahatithan (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the Hazara were captured and enslaved in the 1920s. They were enslaved in the 1890s, not in the 1920s. But those that were enslaved in the 1890s (as well as their children), were naturally still slaves in the 1920s. It is nothing strange if many of the slaves in the 1920s were Hazara, considering how many of them were enslaved in the 1890s: there are only 30 years between those time periods. There is nothing strange in that. The book "The history of Afghanistan: Fayz Muhammad Katib Hazarah's Siraj al-tawarikh"[2], has an enormous amount of information about the enslavement, and can be used to expand the article. You are misreading this article. The reasons you have given, and how you have phrased your words, have given an emotionally biased impression.--Aciram (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1: Wow, what kind of opinion do you have? Do you sometimes have information about the Taliban or have you seen them?

Whatever they are, they are against slavery. I don't know why some believe so negatively instead of having a positive and broad view. Minahatithan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Taliban are running around and enslaving people, but they managed to get the country sanctioned hard and there's a humanitarian crisis going on in Afghanistan due to their actions. They also have a less-than-steller track record when it comes to women's rights.

No good government would ban reporters from talking about negative things about their country. Whenever I search up information about the Taliban, it's all about people fleeing them.

And finally, whenever 99% of people think of Afghanistan, they think of the Taliban. Taliban is the modern legacy of Afghanistan, and the entire reason the country is being held back. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am suprised that anyone would ask someone to have a "positive and broad view" about the Taliban. They certainly treat women like slaves, although they might not call women slaves. It is extremly surpising to hear someone say something like that. It is not a reasonable request to ask someone to have a positive view on religious fundamentalist fanatics.--Aciram (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Religious fundamentalists are bad regardless of religion. I'm Hindu myself, but I will call out Modi and anything that he and his government does. You can be religious and hate fundies.

But thinking about it, it does make me think the purpose of the editing might be to try and erase anything negative about Afghanistan. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: The Taliban is a terrorist group. Terrorists are not good at all. When I said "positive and widespread vision" it was not about the Taliban. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Aciram, Please, I request you not to misjudge. You tell stories about me from your sense without knowing what I want. My intention was to modify unsourced content, not something bigger than that.--Minahatithan (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

While you did modify the lede, which is unsourced, you also did touch some of the lines that have proper sources to them. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Aciram, Those sources that you just added to the article contradict the content of the article. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion have already been been reported to Wikipedia. You have again and again clearly demonstrated that you edit this article from the viewpoint of honor, dishonor and reputation of an ethnic group, and that you do not understand that this is bias. This have been explained to you numerous times. Because of this, you are not a credible editor of this article, and it is hard to view your criticism with any good will. This has been pointed out to you, and you still can not understand it. You have further more been rude to me. Because of this, I have no wish to communicate with your further. This has been pointed out to you, and still you can not understand it. I can not view you as a serious editor or view anything you have to say about this article as serious, since you have yourself clearly demonstrated in the above discussion that you want to edit this article with bias, and see nothing wrong with that. You have no credibility in regard to this article in my view, and I do not intend to communicate with you further. You have demonstrated that you do not understand what I am saying, and I do not have the energy of explaining it to you anymore. You are also rude. Stop speaking to me. Thanks.--Aciram (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain when I was rude to you? For example, which words and phrases did I say to you? I have never judged anyone like you, I have never insulted anyone's privacy like you do. As a Wikipedia editor, I have the right to edit as you do. And I will never accept the judgments you told me to be true because it is only your claim about me. As you answered me, I have to answer you too. If you don't want to talk, take back what you said. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You cannot edit the article until after dispute resolution is over. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, You can refer to the source that User:Aciram recently added, not entirely related to the contents of the article we are discussing about. e.g [3] Minahatithan (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is now over. It was taken to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Slavery_in_Afghanistan, and the moderator has ended the discussion with an advice to User:Minahatithan not to edit this article, and that other editors are allowed to revert User:Minahatithans edits, Quote: "If User:Minihatithan wants to continue to take part in dispute resolution, I am asking them to provide a list of edits that they think should be made to the article, and to state how often they can expect to respond to questions. They haven't yet responded adequately to my questions. Their most recent response is fragmentary, and not an adequate basis for discussion. If they do not have time to provide a list of requested edits and a schedule, then I will have to close this case. If so, I will advise them to avoid this article, and advise the other editors to revert their edits":[4], end quote. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please discuss here

@Aciram: I request you to do not revert the edits without reason. I am ready to discuss. It is Wikipedia's rules that content must have a source. I revert the edit because it has no source. The content must have a source. Minahatithan (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC) @Aciram: Your edit reverting must have a reason. You have no convincing evidence. Thanks!

1) It is Wikipedia rules not to make a change to an article without discussing it. You made a change in the article without discussing it. You deleeted something from the article without discussing it. Now, you demand that your own change be left untouched. It is your change which is questioned. It is you who changed the article. Therefore, it is you who should not change the article until it has been discussed. That is the principle.

2) You question a very simple thing. You question that the Hazara who were enslaved by the Pashtuni ruler and his a army in the 1890s were still slaves in the 1920s. The sources confirm that Hazara were enslaved in Kabul in the 1890s, and that most of the slaves in Kabul in the 1920s were Hazara. Do they explicitly say "the Hazara slaves in the 1920s were the same individuals who were enslaved in the 1890s?" No, but it is common given logic from the context and should be completely non-controversial. I have no idea why you would choose to question something so relatively small and non-controversial because it is not explicitly spelled out, but given the history of your criticism of the article, were you have questioned any mention of Hazara being enslaved, it is easy to assume that this is because of bias.

3) You have clearly stated in the discussion above, that you are Hazara, and that you consider it "shameful" and "dishonorable" that the Hazara was enslaved; that this "dishonorable" fact should not be in the article, and that it is slander of the Hazara to claim so. You have been rude by accusing me of having an agenda against the Hazara by writing this fact in the article, and accused me of having claimed that only Hazara were enslaved in Afghanistan and that all Hazara were slaves, despite the article not claiming it. All of these things, makes you appear bias. But you do not seem to understand this, no matter how many times it has been explained. A biased person should not edit an article were they are biased. You have been asked to stay away from this article. Because of this, it is hard to take you seriously in regard to this article. Because of the bias you appear to state yourself in the first discussion above.

4) You say you are "ready to discuss". However, you have demonstrated before (in the discussion above) that you have not been capable of discussing things. Instead, you have used emotional language and insulted your oponents. This can be seen in the first discussion above. Because you were unable to discuss properly, the discussion was taken to the Noticeboard. But it did not help. You were still unable to discuss properly. And this was just recently. Because of these reasons, I have no trust that you are able to conduct a proper discussion. And I have no patience to try. I do not trust you are capable to conduct a proper discussion in regard to this article. This is because of the bias you express in the first discussion above; because of the rudeness you showed in the first discussion above; and because you have previously demonstrated that you do not know how to conduct a proper discussion. You have never appeared to listen to the arguments given to you in this issue; you have never appeared to understand that you give a biased impression; you have never appeared to understand that you have been rude; you have never appeared to understand the rules, and you have never appeared to understand that you cannot leave wikipedia for a week at the time and expect everyone to leave your changes untouched in the meantime. In short, you do not appear to understand how to conduct and discussion, and because of this I do not have the patience to keep trying to have one with you.

5) You appear deeply biased in the issue of the article, because of reasons you have stated openly yourself in the first discussion above. You have already been advised to leave this article alone or expect that your edits are reverted. I suggest you follow that advise.--Aciram (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I want you to be careful with your words, don't insult anyone, because insulting and cursing is a form of impoliteness. You have no right to insult. We must be polite. You always accuse others. Please don't do this. You insulted me several times but I did not take it seriously. Do not see others from your own perspective. Minahatithan (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so sensitive in this article, how does this opposition benefit you? I am asking you to end the edit war and do not revert my edit. I also have the right to edit. If you are very angry, I am very sorry. But let the article be properly edited. Information without a source has no value and should not be included in the article. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I must say that I can argue. It was you that I asked you to discuss several times but you did not respond and reverted my edits and now you are slandering me. Regarding to the Hazara uprising of 1892, Abdul Rahman Khan's military forces and troops should not be limited only to the Pashtuns. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean this article mentions the uprising in passing because that incident generated a bunch more slaves. It doesn't really matter too much about the makeup of the forces involved, only who the losing side was since that would be the side that ends up becoming enslaved as a consequence of losing. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, dear @RPI2026F1: It is true, but we should not exaggerate and lie. Damages and losses lead to massacres, exile, slavery, migration, displacement, and etc. Minahatithan (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So what's an "exaggeration"? RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is meant to magnify a small issue regarding misinformation about slave sales in Afghan markets in the 20th century, not sure which year of the 20th century? (This information is misleading)

If you are familiar with the Persian language, you can refer to this (encyclopedia) in Persian. It states that the sale of slaves was prohibited even in the early years of rule of Habibullah Khan, the son of Abdul Rahman Khan, the sale of slaves was prohibited (Only Buy And Sell). And several years later selling and keeping them were completely prohibited by Amanullah Khan. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the very reason to why it is hard to take critic from User:Minahatithan seriously when it comes to this subject. Now, User:Minahatithan questiones the articles claims that Hazara slaves were bought and sold at the slave market in Afghanistan in the early 20th-century, despite this being clearly referenced in the article. The references clearly state that Hazara slaves were bought and sold in Afghanistan as late as the "early 20th-century". When you are boguth and sold as a slave, then you are de facto bought ad sold at the slave market, regardless if this is a physical slave market or the slave market as a concept. Slavery was abolished in the 1920s, so it is perfectly correct to say that slaves were bought and sold in the "early 20th-century". The "early 20th-century" can be any year until the 1920s, but no one would assume it was later than the 1920s, because the "early 20th-century" is commonly understood, I would say, to be roughly the period of 1900-1920.

Let me be very frank for clarity. This is nitpicking in my view. User:Minahatithan has clearly stated that he is Hazara and considers it shameful for the Hazara to have been enslaved, and he has questioned the information of Hazara slavery in the article. My impression is that he would simply want to diminish and play down any information of Hazara slavery in the article because he considers it a damange to the reputation of the Hazara people, and that he is so sensitive about the subject that he questions every word of it. This is an example. He questions the above information because he considers it an "exhaggeration" and don't want it to give the "wrong impression" and asks me for references, despite there being several references in the article, and despite it not being an exhaggeration at all. No one has even mentioned how many Hazaras were sold, only that Hazara were sold as slaves in the early 20th-century, which is perfectly correct since slavery was not abolished until the 1920s.

This is an example of the reason to why it is extremely hard and tiring to try to discuss with User:Minahatithan about this subject, and this is why the block on him should stay. It appears the subject is too sensitive for him to handle neutrally, and if the block is not there I don't think this will ever end. --Aciram (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: In my opinion, you will never understand my words. Unfortunately, you don't know anything other than saying "shame and shameful". It's too repetitive please say something new. Yes, I don't want you to impose lies on the people of Hazara. Yes, I like the Hazara people, that's why I reject your words, they are exaggerated. I don't know why you are emotional? You are trying hard to blame the entire story of Afghanistan's slavery on the Hazara people, while slavery in Afghanistan does not belong to any particular ethnic group. And I would like to reduce this exaggeration of you and some sentimental people like you because it is really against the facts of the Hazara people. Yes, I want to reduce this exaggeration as it is, and you increase it violently. You are so blindly prejudiced that you don't feel it yourself and you think you are right. Minahatithan (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: Please ensure that any information you add must be sourced and accurate. The issue of selling slaves in the 20th century should be clear in which years, because a "century" is not one or two years, but more than your entire life. You write the information in this way from the antipathy and emotions in the editing. Minahatithan (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please summarize

@ @Aciram: & @Minahatithan:

• Pl. note we all are here for constructively develop WP Encyclopedia, Admins @ WP:ANI do not seem to have found severe personal misconduct on either side and seem to believe both of you would be able to resolve content dispute by focusing on content. Also none of us are native English speakers so avoid to take things personally and avoid giving importance to linguistic misunderstandings . Hence I strongly appeal to Keep Wikipedia:EGO squabbles aside and WP:DEESCALATE to focus only on content dispute.
• Both of you have chance to reopen WP:DRN where User:Robert McClenon can help, but for that Minahatithan will need to be available there without much break till discussions there are over.
• Alternatively both of you might have noticed my inputs @ WP:ANI. You can decide to go directly for WP:RFC after completing WP:RFCBEFORE steps and agreeing on suitable RFC question. In this case discussion will take place @ this talk page itself. Once both of you summarize your positions rest of visiting users will carry on discussion process and one of you not around shall matter less.
• Suggested steps 1) List/ mention exact text sentences being disputed. If two many sentences and points take one by one in separate subsections. 2) Give links to related references. If references are from books include related paragraph in quote section of the reference for easy reference of other users.3) summarize your own positions withing 150 to 500 words each. While doing so include links to relevant reference links and WP policies. 4) Where you can not finish in 500 words write in your own user space and include link here.
• I can help you by asking clarification questions if needed. I am offering unsolicited help in WP:Goodfaith. At any point of time feel free to communicate. Good editing and cheers Bookku (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@ @Bookku: I have already summarized what he is questioning at present in my post above. The only thing lacking is the links you ask for. This is very cleary referenced in the article, and the only thing you need to do is to go to the article and read them: he questions that Hazara were sold as "late as the early 20th-century". That is mentioned and referenced very clearly in the article:Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present p. 45-46, M. Nazif Shahrani: Modern Afghanistan: The Impact of 40 Years of War, Rebecca Stuh: Reading Khaled Hosseini, p 75, S. A. Mousavi: The Hazaras of Afghanistan, <ref>Hafizullah Emadi: Repression, Resistance, and Women in Afghanistan, Niamatullah Ibrahimi: The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for ..., p 90, Raghav Sharma: Nation, Ethnicity and the Conflict in Afghanistan: Political Islam and the ..., p 80-81. He asks me for references despite the references being clear in the article: that is yet another reason I cannot take his critics seriously. Please look at the article.

These things cannot be resolved. I appeal to the moderators that he remains blocked. I must be allowed to state the reason to why I cannot discuss with him, and why I cannot take his critic seriously, since this is what causes the reason for miscommunication here: I believe he has bias and are nitpickning on every last word and phrase in order to erase as much as possible about Hazara slavery, because he considers any mention of it to damage the reputation of the Hazara people.

I refuse to spend my time trying to discuss with him. Experience has proven that it is not possible. I have the right not to keep trying. I do not have the time, I am tired, and I do not feel well trying to discuss with this person. This has been going on far too long as it is. It feels like this will continue for eternity: if this is resolved, there will only be another issue, and I do not believe it will ever end. This has been the experience so far, and I do not believe it will end. I ask you not to force me to try to continue to discuss with someone I consider is coming to the discussion with bad faith. I do not feel good discussing with such a person. I also ask that the ban on him editing this article remain, because the discussion page of this article, as well as the edit history, in my view clearly show that he has bad faith and bias. I do not wish to return to this discussion. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram Okay both of you do not communicate with each other directly and communicate with me only. But I am here to help in content dispute not the personal aspect. Really I do not have background of the dispute.

Clarification question:

• a) Which specific sentence for the article is under dispute?
• b) Is it possible to provide write down specific relevant sentences from the source links given. That can save other users time to go through every article individually. To do this you can take more time/ days as you wish. Bookku (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Minahatithan for a while communicate with me and avoid personal because I will be ignoring personal of both sides until content dispute discussion moves ahead. Bookku (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Again you got it wrong, I never said to delete all information about the Hazara people. This is your wrong and negative perception because you want to make me look wrong in the eyes of others. I just said that the sale and purchase of slaves in the 20th century which did not belong to only one ethnic group, it is not clear in which years it was because a century is many and many years. Minahatithan (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Minahatithan In your sentence ".. Again you got it wrong .." here you seem to referring word 'you' to Aciram. learn to avoid possible confusions and WP:INDENT.

• a) You will opt for to reopen WP:DRN or WP:RFC ?
• b) If RfC specific content information matters like, which sentence for the article is under dispute? what specific change you want. which refs support your position. Personlisation tactics will not go vert far for very long to any one. Bookku (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku: This sentence (Hazara people were still living in slavery and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century), which was recently added by User:Aciram, is incompatible with its sources. The reliable sources mention only in the years 1888-1893 that after the massacre of more than 60% of the Hazara people, many of them were displaced and some were sold as slaves.

The false statement about the sale of slaves in the 20th century that does not match the given sources should be removed, that's all. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As the User:Aciram claims that the buying and selling of slaves in Afghanistan (which was not limited to any ethnic group) took place in the 20th century, but this claim is not stated in the sources, only the years are mentioned in the sources. This information by User:Aciram is misleading because a century spans many and many years and it must be specified. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained the content dispute above. This is just another example of his former critic. I no longer wish to participate. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Convincing answer without judging the personality of the editors

@Aciram: The sources you added in Article Slavery in Afghanistan are not about the subject of slave markets in the 20th century. Do you have a source for your claim that slaves were sold in Afghan markets in the 20th century? Minahatithan (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Linguistic misunderstanding

@Minahatithan On your part at least one misunderstanding seem to be coming from linguistic misreading / misunderstanding.

One of your confusion seem to be coming from linguistic misunderstanding. In sentence word begar used meaning bonded or compulsory labour : ".. in 1923, there were about 700 enslaved people in Kabul, called begar or impressed labor .." comes actually from Persian from Persian بیگار‎ (bigâr). See :Wikt:begar & List of English words of Persian origin . But read your statement @ article talk ".. Although some of the Hazara groups lived in difficult conditions, but they never indulged in begging and .. ..". It seems you got confused Persian origin word bigâr / bigâri with English word of 'begging' which has different origins and meaning from 12 th century.

Then there may be some other misunderstandings too of more complex nature those would need separate discussions we can discuss later if you wish so. Bookku (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Bookku: No, no, I don't mean anything else by (beggar), I haven't done anything wrong here. I know the difference between these two (beggar) and (bigâr). I gave an example using the word beggar. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Bookku: My argument is in the false information that was recently added by User:Aciram in the article. User:Aciram claims that in the 20th century, slaves were sold in the Kabul market and considered it specific to the Hazara people. While the slaves in Afghanistan did not belong to any ethnic group.

In the sources about the Hazaras, it is mentioned only in the years 1888-1893 that after the massacre of more than 60% of the Hazara people, many of them were displaced and some were sold as slaves.

The false statement about the sale of slaves in the 20th century that does not match the given sources should be removed, that's all. Minahatithan (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please focus here

According to sources and evidence

After 1888–1893 Hazara uprisings and the massacre of the Hazaras, Abdul Rahman Khan captured many Hazaras mostly as war captives and sold them as slaves in the cities of Kabul and Kandahar, but the end of this process was done after the death of Abdul Rahman by his son Habibullah Khan when he came to power, he banned this process.(Only selling and buying) And also he invited the Hazaras who had migrated to countries like Iran and Pakistan to return to their country, that a large number of Hazaras returned.

Finally in 1923, Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan, which did not belong to a particular tribe, to be completely banned, its buying, selling, keeping, and other practices.

Therefore, we conclude that the sale of slaves (especially in markets) was banned and did not exist in the early 20th century, but the possession and keeping of slaves continued, which was finally banned completely by Amanullah Khan in 1923.

I request you to correct and remove some false information from the article because false information will not be useful. We must rely on the truth. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Source: *"هزاره" (in Persian). Retrieved 2022-11-16.

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

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

• چهل دختران هزاره.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2023 (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:

• چهل دختران هزاره.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

This page subject has proven to be a sensitive subject, with users engaging in edit wars, being blocked from editing and unregistered ip-adresses - some of whom from the same region and may be the same person - often removing referenced information from the article. The article should perhaps be put under protection, at least from being edited by IPs. --Aciram (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)