Talk:Hazara region

Languages

Following are the languages of Pakistan (KPK) as per ethnologue. http://www.ethnologue.com/map/PK_n and http://www.ethnologue.com/map/PK_s) 14 is pashto which shows Torghar, Battagram, and Western Manshera pashto speaking. According to ethnologue hindko is spoken in "Hazara division, Mansehra and Abbotabad districts, Indus and Kaghan valleys and Indus valley tributaries, NWFP." You can also visit www.joshuaproject.net to see hindko map "the hindko of Pakistan". Languages of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (Pakistan Census 1998) http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/other/yearbook2011/Population/16-20.pdf. Here are some additional sources for future refernces (http://hrgp.org.pk/committees/119-khaiber-pakhtonkhuan-districts.html) , (http://the-great-hazara.blogspot.com/),(http://hamaraharipur.webs.com/haripurhistory.htm) , (http://beta.dawn.com/news/608754/call-for-including-of-oghi-in-torghar-district) , (http://docsfiles.com/view.php?view=http://urban.unhabitat.org.pk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=i0PPchSs4Lk%3d&tabid=91&mid=442&keyword=district profile mansehra&count=), and areas to the north and north west close to Battagram are pashto speaking such as Baffa, Battal, Chattar Plain, Hillkot, Shinkiari etc. Please be aware that i have qouted few hindkowan blogs, which can be changed at anytime by the creators of the said blogs, however, it supports the language information. (http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/herald/herald127.htm) (http://www.erra.pk/Reports/KMC/BattagramProfile200907.pdf), Tigerkhan007 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The demographic information regarding provinces of Pakistan presented to general public is usually pretty off and in some cases do not even make any mathematical sense. Subsequent to the merger of FATA with KP the demographic miscalculations in KP becomes more profound. For example some publications state that 18% of the population of KP is Hindko speaking, however, upon research not one recent empirical study was found where global Hindko speaking exceeds 3.7 million worldwide (rounded to 4 million) i.e. including Hindko speakers of Pakistani Kashmir, Punjab and other areas outside KP. If we impose that number on 30.5 million and 35.5 million we get 13% and 11%, respectively. Even if we consider entire population of Hazara Division to be Hindko speaking then Hindko speakers would represent 15% of the merged province. It may, however, be noted that out of 7 districts of Hazara Division, only Abbottabad is overwhelmingly Hindko, while Ghazi Tehsil of Haripur District, and Ogai Tehsil of Mansehra District is Pashto speaking. Districts of Torghar and Battagram are also Pashto speaking, while Kohistan upper and lower have Kohistani as majority language.

Keeping the above example in our analysis, it is ascertained that KP is the most homogeneous province having 82% population being Pashto speaking, followed by Punjabi's in Punjab at 75%, 60-62% Sindhi's in Sindh and around 50% Balochi & Brahvi combined in Baluchistan.

Finally, the interesting fact is that around 38 Pakistani districts have Pashto majority, followed by 21 Sindhi, 20 Punjabi, 19 Balochi, 13 Seraiki, 8 Urdu, 4 Potohari, 3 Brahvi and Hindko each, 2 Koistani and 1 Chitrali. 182.180.61.170 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article is an overlap/duplicate with Hazara division. I propose a merger, but don't do it myself, as I am not competent on the topic. --KnightMove (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If merging, Hazara Division needs to put into this article (a history section). Pahari Sahib 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The merge was performed and, several years later, reverted. See Talk:Hazara Division#Proposed merger with main Hazara (region) article. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Changes made regarding Khyber Pakhtunkwa

NWFP was the name of the province currently known as Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah, either in an effort to revert or whatsoever, if for example I dont agree with anyone's comments or changes, then at the effort made in a real manner should not be reverted, many narrow minded reader try to change the names of politicians they dont like and submit other names with no or little contribution in the history of Hazara. Any change made shall be seen in the context of making a larger difference. For example, if I dont like General Ayub Khan and remove his name or leaders like Raja Sikandar Zaman, Pir Sabir Shah or Mehtan Ahmed Khan, due to my personal liking disliking, it would be an absurd thing as all these persons represented the Hazara region at provincial level or national level so they do need a mention in notable people. Similarly, many other unknown people who made a difference in the history of Hazara should be mentioned in order to improve this article only, and not to see it in a way as if I belong to the village where these persons lived, this wont be a nice thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.131.80 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has replaced the name NWFP with Khyber Pakhtunkwa every where in the article in a very absurd manner. Even names of books and historical evenst concerning NWFP have been changed; which doesnt make sense. i am attempting to revert few of the changes but anyone with knowledge of the area should be able to revert these nonsensical changes.Wikitanoli (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is no debating site, this page is made if you want to discuss content on page and some how change it. There are other sites for debating; suck as blogger.com etc. cheers!Wikitanoli (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking

There is a very long list of "notable people" in this article. It is unlikely that articles will be written about all or any of these people, so they should not be linked unless you are going to create those articles in the near future. Creating red links for hte sake of red links alone doesn't not improve Wikipedia. Red links should only be created where there is reason to believe that articles will be created. Also, the names of article about people do not include their titles, so it is incorrect to link [[Major General Zaheer-ul-Islam Abbasi]] or [[Prince Nawaz Khan Eli Swati]]. When you are making a link to an existing article or an article that you plan to create soon, link only the person's name, i.e., Major-General [[Zaheer-ul-Islam Abbasi]]. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The very long list contains a lot of people who are not notable for encyclopedic purposes; it looks more like a telephone directory than genuinely important info; I had linked all the people because if they are notable enough, they can have their own page explaining their notability; like some so the personalities on that list already have. cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point -- there are a lot of people here. Maybe the list should be limited to people who have articles in Wikipedia? Ground Zero | t 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that too.Fred-Bolor (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As WP:DIRECTORY says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not... lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." I have removed all notable people who do not have Wikipedia articles. They can be re--added to the list when there articles are written.. Ground Zero | t 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the notables list all together. It seemed like anyone logging into the page used to sign up their name, so served no useful purpose. The content of the article is more important; if person is notable, he/she must be mentioned under one of the headings. cheersWikitanoli (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, have made several amendments to this page and tried to streamline as much as possible. Yet, there scarecely seems to be any point in (once again) doing this and making detailed editions/amendenments when people are just time and again accessing this page nd adding information that is either (a) repetitious, and given at a number of other pages on Wikipedia or (b) adding self-aggrandizing listings and names etc, of tribes, relatives, personal ancestors etc, and/or (c) putting up again matters that are controversial and have been removed/deleted and/or abbreviated and clarified a number of times before. I would very seriously suggest that this article should be locked as it is, please, if the Wiki admin deems this fit. Thank you. talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Dear All, With ref to my earlier talk note above-- I would please once again request that the 'Hazara' region page not be tampered with by (a) adding self-promotional and self-advertising material; (b) adding contentious material of a supposedly 'historical' nature which is not verifiable or has to do with the 'promotion' of specific tribes, people/individuals and movements or political parties, thereby damaging the credibility and neutrality of this page/article; and (c) re-adding material which has been removed and/or linked to other pages which already exist, to avoid needless and repetitious duplication. I would also request all users/editors to please sign in when they are planning to make any changes etc, in line with the above criteria/requests. I realise that most of these changes are made in good faith, by people in the Hazara region itself, perhaps seeking to extoll the deeds of their tribes/people and/or ancestors. But this is NOT the forum for this sort of activity, you must please try to realise this. Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia with a focused and impartial approach. Perhaps you should consider posting the material you want to share on some other local historical site/s or even making your own website/s? Thank you. ====Khani100

I would also like to suggest, as already suggested before, that this article on Hazara, Pakistan; the article on Hazara Division, be merged and that the one on Hazara District be removed/deleted please, and simple mention just made in the one combined article that until 1976, the region/division was a district. Perhaps, some Consensus can be reached on this? ====Khani100

Am willing to slowly and gradually slog through all these articles and revise them and merge them, properly, if so agreed. ====Khani100

Edit request

---

Languages of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (Pakistan Census 1998) http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/other/yearbook2011/Population/16-20.pdf Hazara is no city but it is the name of a region in NWFP, Pakistan.

This entry should be merged with the entry on the Hazara Division. Psurajit 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not done: please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for information on how two articles can be merged. Mato (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks dear Mato; shall check and do the needful over some time, gradually. Khani100 (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Khani100

I am amending the introductory section of this article to bring some realistic situation into it. Hindkowan is a created term that has relevance to Peshawar/Kphat regions only as the term is used to imply both non-Pashtuns as well as Hindko speakers - it is meaningless in Hazara as there are many tribes/ethnicities that speak Pushto only, Hindko only and others who are bi-lingual. Similarly there are Pashtuns who speak Pushto only, Hindko only or are bi-lingual. Thus it is also wrong to suggest that there is a Hazarawal ethnicity given the many tribes, languages that feed into the diverse identities espoused by inhabitants of the region. The term Hazarawal is used for a regional and domicilary purposes generally but also as a political term by those who are seeking cessession from Pakhtunkhwa province following its name from North West Frontier Province. Moarrikh (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Moarrikh, in some points I certainly agree with you, but I would also like to say that at tghis time, many Hazarewals, of various tribal/ethnic origins, feel very strongly about their being a separate entity, of a regional nature/type; and one cannot say that the term (although politicised) isnt a valid one in the light of the Hazara Movement for cessation from the NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I dont feel strongyl either way, personally, but I think that the sentiments of a large chunk of people also need to be kept in mind before any changes are made. Thanks Khani100 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Tribes

There seems to be a repetition of the lists/names of tribes here, in the intro and again under 'Main tribes' which servss only to add to the overall confusion of this article. Please, lets try to improve these articles and WP Pakistan standards and not indulge in self-gratification and self-promotion of our own tribes, relatives etc. That only leads to edit warring which inevitably results in an article being ruined beyond description. Im making some basic amendments again. Thanks Khani100 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Vandalism

This is to report that someone unreg user 'Spogmaye' has vabndalised this page by adding a note that seems quite offensive to people and has also left some sort of name and address there at the bottom. Im going to remove this and also warn this person.Khani100 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Khani100 it is one thing to give space to a political movement which you say represents the majority's sentiments but it may equally be true that a great majority is silent. If this is the case then the media and the supporters of separation i.e. Hazarawals are making the loudest noise and that most of the region's residents, being less influenced by seccesionists, may in reality be pr-Pakhtunkhwa. It is very true that the noisiest pro-Hazara province agitators are in built-up, developed areas and those who are either silent or anti-seccesionists live in less developed areas of Hazara who do not call themselves Hazarawals nor are interested in being friends of MQM/PMLQ. Gujratis, Kucchis, Dehlavis, Deccanis, Biharis may unite around a common denominator of being Indian immigrants - but what's the commonality among those trying to go under the banner of Hazarawals. Because this is a contested label then it should be highlighted as such and not as an accepted one. This article should be politically neutral and have both sides of the debate or leave it out altogether. Moarrikh (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In comments from Moarrikh he said that pro Hazara agitators are in developed areas while the less developed areas are silent and not call themselves hazarawals, this is not true.All the people in hazara including pushtoons. tanolis , gujjers ,qurashi and kohistanies are hazarewals . We all are in the favour of Hazara but through legal means and on the basis of administrative unit not on basis of ethnicity, Most of the peoples in Hazara have no controversy on division of the province on administrative lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.187.202 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Amendments

I have today removed a sizable chunk of non relevant material from the section on the Muslim League in Hazara; someone obviously out to promote a personal relative and/or some historical figure in a non objective manner, purely paeans of praise. Please, try to remain historically accurate and balanced when editing and also dont forget to add cittaions/refs, thanks. 39.54.48.86 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Col (r) Muneeb Awan

Article title

Now that the article has been more clearly defined to be about the geographic/historic region (and not the administrative division), we may need to change its title. At the very least, it could be changed to Hazara (Pakistan), because geographic regions and larger administrative entities use parentheses and not commas in their disambiguators (WP:NCPLACEDAB). But that title would be ambiguous between the region and the division, so something like Hazara region would be better. Although that carries an ambiguity of its own: the Hazarajat of Afghanistan is also sometimes referred to as the "Hazara region", and even though the Pakistani region is probably the primary topic for the term, that title may not be as specific as it can. Is Hazara region (Pakistan) too long? – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

Sadiq Sayeed Khan (Former Federal Secretary Govt of Pakistan and Chairman Supreme Council Tanzeem ul Awan Pakistan From Abbottabad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahir mehmood awan (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2023 (2)

Sadiq Sayeed Khan (Former Federal Secretary Govt of Pakistan and Chairman Supreme Council Tanzeem ul Awan Pakistan From Abbottabad) Tahir mehmood awan (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2024

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move; editors are not convinced that it is sufficiently ambiguous with the region in Afghanistan (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Hazara, Pakistan → Hazara region – Article is about region and WP:COMMONNAME per: Google Ngrams, Google search result and media coverage.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] Furthermore, "Hazara, Pakistan" servers as a (disambiguation) link to "Hazara region, Hazara Division, Hazara District, Hazara University". Ainty Painty (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Hazara region" is ambiguous with Hazarajat in Afghanistan, making it a less suitable title. Regarding that last point, we usually don't have pages for partial disambiguations (except if the main disambiguation page is too large), so Hazara, Pakistan would likely redirect to Hazara#Pakistan. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  For Afghan Hazarajat, the name Hazarajat region is used not Hazara region. See media coverage of "Hazara region" and "Hazarajat region" nowhere will the use of "Hazara region" be found for the Afghan Hazarajat.Ainty Painty (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please create a requested move for this (as explained above) rather than adding it back to "Uncontroversial technical requests". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Above conversation between Chaotic Enby and Ainty Painty copied from WP:RMT. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title in line with comments above. But I suggest and would support something like Hazara region (Pakistan) or Hazara (region in Pakistan). Aintabli (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support the proposed title as the name "Hazara, Pakistan" is much more suitable as a disambiguation page for the many areas in Pakistan with the name. "Hazara region" is a well suited and recognised name title to use which disambiguates itself from a specific district or division unlike the current page title name. Confusion with the area Hazarajat can be clarified atop the article.

RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the move of Hazara, Pakistan to Hazara region because for Afghanistan accurate name is Hazarajat not Hazara region in given-links/sources this region of Pakistan mostly mentioned as Hazara region not Hazara, Pakistan it is unnecessary to as Hazara, Pakistan.223.123.13.161 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (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.