Talk:Hazaras/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Principal component of the population of Afghanistan?

The first sentence is "The Hazaras are an ethnic group and the principal component of the population of Afghanistan, native to, and primarily residing in the Hazarajat region in central Afghanistan and generally scattered throughout Afghanistan."

That can't be right, as Afghanistan is primarily Pashtun? Hazaras number 4 million, Pashtuns around 13million or something. If the sentence is meant to say that The Hazaras are the principal component of the Hazarajat region... well, the sentence needs reworking to reflect that, as that is not what it states when taking into account punctuation. I would edit it with the facts, but I got in trouble one time for editing a first paragraph, so what do you guys think? Mercster (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. I removed this unsourced claim, which, at best, is ambiguous. Thanks, @Mercster! —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@ThorstenNY: This content has a source and it is not unclear. Please do not delete the sourced information. See the source Encyclopaedia of Islam. This is not unsourced claim. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this needs to be escalated with @Iampharzad reverting your edit? This is above my pay grade, and frankly something I'm not even interested in dealing with. I'm disabled and about to move cross-town with no friends or family to help, so I've got enough on my plate. ;-) Good luck! Mercster (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mercster: This content "The Hazaras are an ethnic group and the principal component of the population of Afghanistan, native to, and primarily residing in the Hazarajat region in central Afghanistan and generally scattered throughout Afghanistan." is absolutely right. Remember that the Hazaras are the principal and one of the largest ethnic groups in Afghanistan. They were by far the largest ethnic group in the past, during 1888–1893 Uprisings of Hazaras, over 60% of Hazaras massacred with some being displaced. Please do not attempt to delete reliable content. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Uhhhhh... well, ok? I didn't edit anything, first of all. And I don't need to remember anything. The article stated "The Hazaras are an ethnic group and the principal component of the population of Afghanistan, native to, and primarily residing in the Hazarajat region in central Afghanistan and generally scattered throughout Afghanistan." They may have been their first, but they are not the CURRENT PRINCIPAL COMPONENT OF THE POPULATION OF THE NATION OF AFGHANISTAN.

We've obviously stepped on some very sensitive toes here by deigning to question a clearly incorrect statement on a Wikipedia article. I'll leave you to it. Have "fun." Mercster (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmmhmm, a look at your talk page is instructive. Have fun! Mercster (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkic and Mongolic words

KoizumiBS, The language of the Hazara people has more Turkic words than Mongolic. (Hazaragi dialect of Persian infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic). See the source at Encyclopaedia of Islam.--Iampharzad (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Regards--Iampharzad (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Turkic, Mongolic and Iranic ancestry

Based on source and genetic research: The Hazaras cluster with Central Asian populations and they are closer to Turkic populations from Central Asia than to East-Asian or Indo-Iranian populations.

Content in the source: Our study confirms the results of Li et al's study48 that cluster the Hazara population with Central Asian populations, rather than Mongolian populations, which is consistent with ethnological studies.49 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.

Thank you--Iampharzad (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Iampharzad (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Iampharzad, these are early studies. See additional studies. The current ones (2019-2020 years research) talk about the predominance of the Mongolian genetic pool: "In our earlier study, results showed that Hazaras have a close genetic affinity with Turkic-speaking (Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Uyghur) and Mongolian people. Admixture and outgroup findings further clarified that Hazara have 57.8% gene pool from Mongolians". (Forensic features and genetic legacy of the Baloch population of Pakistan and the Hazara population across Durand-line revealed by Y chromosomal STRs). "The results from pairwise genetic distances, MDS, PCA, and phylogenetic relationship reconstruction demonstrate that present-day Hazaras are genetically closer to the Turkic-speaking populations (Uyghur, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz) residing in northwest China than with other Central/South Asian populations and Mongolian. Outgroup and admixture f3, f4, f4-ratio, qpWave, and qpAdm results further demonstrate that Hazara shares more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carries 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry. Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians". (A comprehensive exploration of the genetic legacy and forensic features of Afghanistan and Pakistan Mongolian-descent Hazara). Researchers write that the original core of the Hazaras separated precisely from the Mongols.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: Contemporary genetic research shows that the Hazaras are much closer to the people of Central Asia, especially the Turkic people of Central Asia, rather than to those of East Asians and the Mongols. Apart from other genetic studies of the Hazaras. See some Hazara DNA tests here For example, [1], [2], [3]], [4]. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Iampharzad, I have already answered that these studies have been supplemented in newer. Youtube links are not reliable.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: In the source I added they mentioned these things about Hazaras, YouTube links are just examples, nothing more.--Iampharzad (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Regards--Iampharzad (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Reverting the edits

KoizumiBS, I don't know the reason for my reverting my edits. I explained very well that the Hazaras have much racial relationship with the Turkic people of Central Asia, rather than with the people of East Asia and the Mongols, according to genealogical findings and contemporary sources. Please don't get angry, it can be seen that your edits are a racial bias.--Iampharzad (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Iampharzad, the problem is that you removed the text from reliable sources. I did not touch the conclusions given in your source (from 2011 year). I only supplemented these conclusions with the results of recent research (including from 2017-2020 years sources). Moreover, the majority of sources traditionally believe that the ethnogenesis of the Hazaras is primarily associated with the Mongols: Great Russian Encyclopedia, scholars as Vasily Bartold, Ármin Vámbéry, Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov, Vadim Masson, Vadim Romodin, Ilya Petrushevsky, Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Barbara A. West, Yuri Averyanov, Elbrus Sattsayev; genetic scientists as Atif Adnan, Allah Rakha, PhD Sabitov, PhD Zhabagin and many others. I want to point out that your actions violate the rules described in WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:CONS. Accusation of racial bias is a flagrant violation of the WP:CIV rules.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: You have already included these sources with their contents in the Hazaras article, there is no need to repeat them. But I have included the contemporary source, which is based on genetic research on the Hazaras, which clearly says are closely related to the Turkic populations of Central Asia rather than Mongolians and East Asians or Indo-Iranians. See again the source [In the heartland of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic landscape of Central Asian populations]--Iampharzad (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Iampharzad (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: The reliable source content from the Encyclopedia of Islam says that the Hazaras are a principal component of the population of Afghanistan. They speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and a few Mongolian words. Also this means that the Hazaras are more closely related to Turkic-speaking or Turkic-descended peoples. Thank you--Iampharzad (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I added sources that more up to date. I didn't remove or change the conclusions from the source you added. I supplemented them with new research (including from 2019-2020): "Outgroup and admixture f3, f4, f4-ratio, qpWave, and qpAdm results further demonstrate that Hazara shares more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carries 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry. Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians"; "Admixture and outgroup findings further clarified that Hazara have 57.8% gene pool from Mongolians". In addition, you removed information about the most common haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 or C3: "Y-DNA haplogroup C3 is certainly associated with the expansion of the Mongols"; "The high frequency of haplogroup C2-M217 is consistent with the Mongolian origin of the Hazaras". As for the language, Mongolian elements make up 10% of the Hazara vocabulary. According to Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov, the ancestors of the Hazaras were Mongol-speaking and only after the resettlement, they mixed with the Persian-speaking and Turkic-speaking population: "hordes of Mongol princes and feudal lords found themselves in a Persian-speaking encirclement; they mixed with them, were influenced by the Persian-Tajik culture and gradually adopted the Persian language". According to him, the Turkic elements compared to the Mongolian ones played a secondary role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoizumiBS (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 Sep 2022 (UTC)

My 2c: disagreements between different researchers about genetic origings of various language groups of people are not uncommon. So, if there exist relibale sources that support different points of view, they all should reported in the article. Ruslik_Zero 10:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero, C.Fred, I want to inform you that during the discussion I have not seen a rationale for deleting my edits from user Iampharzad. 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) 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert

Respectful HistoryofIran, I added information from a reliable source. And I did not make changes to the edits of others, just keeping my edits because is based on a reliable source and genetic research on the Hazaras.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss your changes up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I talked and explained that my content is based on a source and is completely correct. Thank--Iampharzad (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would highly advise you to reply to KoizumiBS. Also, you have now reverted three users, one being an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectful @HistoryofIran:, I have already discussed the article made with admin later I reverted the edit. With respect--Iampharzad (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the admin who told you to discuss your changes, not that you should keep on reverting [5]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

According to him, I explained at the Talk page. With respect--Iampharzad (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That so? Would you like to link the diff where he says that then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If the admin opposed my editing, he would revert my editing. I explained clearly. With respects--Iampharzad (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He already did once [6]. And as expected, you have no diff of him saying that you explained it at the talk page. I'm reverting you again. Continue edit warring and I will report you to ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectful HistoryofIran, Reason for reverting? My Editing is based on the source. I will revert.--Iampharzad (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: Please be advised that the above reads like a statement of intent to engage in edit warring. I strongly suggest you refrain from reverting until a consensus is reached through discussion here, lest administrative action need to be taken. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed respectable admin C.Fred.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In the heartland of Eurasia the multilocus genetic landscape of Central Asian populations

This reliable and up-to-date source confirms this and says that "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. 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."

Very clear: Hazaras are generally grouped closer to the Central Asian peoples and are closely related to the Turkic peoples populations of Central Asia rather than Mongolians and East Asians or Indo-Iranians. Thank--Iampharzad (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Iampharzad (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This information is from 2011. I added the 2019 and 2020 research articles that you removed.--KoizumiBS (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Because if the content of the source is non -indigenous and biased, it must be reacted to it.--Iampharzad (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just your point of view. Deleting sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is unacceptable.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes and deletions of the article's information are contrary to Wikipedia's rules.--Iampharzad (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: Which rules? Because you are certainly changing and deleting information in the article. Why, by your own reckoning, should you not be taken to task for changing information? —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectful Admin @C.Fred: My main reason is not reverting and removing the edits by others, but rather intelligent changes and deletions, some of which harm the previous informations under the pretext of adding new informations.--Iampharzad (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stop being vague and properly explain your reasons? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have done the same, and I have clearly explained it. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No you haven't. You have been told to refrain from edit warring and reach WP:CONSENSUS several times now. At this rate it's just a question of time till you get blocked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If I hadn't reverted my edits, many users wouldn't know what new changes are. It will not be fair to block my account for a few reversions. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So you disregarded three users (including an admin) and WP:CONSENSUS just for that? One should perhaps begin to ask if WP:NOTHERE applies as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Thank you and appreciate you.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Pay attention

In any way, there is an effort to make the Hazaras, who are a principal component of Afghanistan, to be Mongolians.--Iampharzad (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Or is somebody actively trying to conceal their Mongolian origins? All I can see is this is a content dispute that Iampharzad has lit back up without further discussion after the section immediately above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred It is not at all to hide the Mongolian origin, but to contradict what they say (Until the 19th century Hazaras spoke Mongolian. for example). There is no reliable evidence that the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the 19th century or they spoke a Turkic language. Thank you--Iampharzad (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Iampharzad, you can't make your own assessment of sources without a corresponding discussion in WP:RS/N. 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"; 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". 5) Orientalist Ármin Vámbéry who visited Afghanistan in the 19th century wrote that: "It is said that the Hazaras were transported by Genghis Khan from Mongolia, their ancestral home, to the south of Central Asia and, thanks to the influence of Shah Abbas II, were converted to Shiism. It is astonishing that they have replaced their mother tongue with Persian, which, even in the regions inhabited by them, is not universally spoken, and only a small part, which has remained isolated in the mountains near Herat and has been burning coal for several centuries, speaks a kind of slang of the Mongolian language". 6) Allah Rakha, Fatima, Min-Sheng Peng, Atif Adan, Rui Bi, Memona Yasmin, Yong-Gang Yao: "Moreover, there are also lines of evidence that some of the remote tribes of Hazaras spoke Mongol language till last century. Their central Asian facial features including sparse beards, high cheekbones and epicanthic eye folds further supports their Mongol origin". All these sources meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. 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) 12:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In this reliable source Says that the cluster the Hazara population with Central Asian populations, rather than Mongolian populations, which is consistent with ethnological studies. 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.

I have already answered this several times. In any case, this cann't be the reason for deleting other reliable sources. I added sources that more up to date. I didn't remove or change the conclusions from the source you added. I supplemented them with new research, that you removed (including from 2019-2020): "Outgroup and admixture f3, f4, f4-ratio, qpWave, and qpAdm results further demonstrate that Hazara shares more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carries 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry. Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians"; "Admixture and outgroup findings further clarified that Hazara have 57.8% gene pool from Mongolians". In addition, you removed information about the most common haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 or C3: "Y-DNA haplogroup C3 is certainly associated with the expansion of the Mongols"; "The high frequency of haplogroup C2-M217 is consistent with the Mongolian origin of the Hazaras". Haplogroup C-M217 originated in Mongolia about ~ 1,000 years ago.--KoizumiBS (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It also says in this reliable source that the Hazāras are a principal component of the population of Afghanistan. They speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and a few Mongolian words. They have traditionally occupied the central part of the country, the mountainous region of Hazārajāt. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A big request not to repeat the same arguments indefinitely. I already answered this too. Mongolian elements make up 10% of the Hazara vocabulary. According to Atif Adnan, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words. According to Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov, the ancestors of the Hazaras were Mongol-speaking and only after the resettlement, they mixed with the Persian-speaking and Turkic-speaking population: "hordes of Mongol princes and feudal lords found themselves in a Persian-speaking encirclement; they mixed with them, were influenced by the Persian-Tajik culture and gradually adopted the Persian language". According to him, the Turkic elements compared to the Mongolian ones played a secondary role. About the original Mongol language is also written in many other works..--KoizumiBS (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

The principal component

The Hazaras are described (in the lead) as the principal component of the population of Afghanistan. What does that mean? M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Male clothing section badly written, uncited

The male clothing section makes some very bold, uncited claims. It also needs an edit for grammar. Specifically this part:

Barak is a kind of soft, sticky and thick piece made from the first wool of lambs of special sheep that are raised in Hazarajat, provided. In addition to being a very acceptable, stylish, and regal clothe, the Hazara barak is also a warm winter that is resistant to moisture and does not get wet easily in snow and rain. Also, barak has a special property and softness, it reduces muscle pains and is also healing for joint pains. Nowadays, the most common clothes among Hazara men is the perahan o tunban and sometimes with a hat or a turban. 2601:1C2:700:92D0:78C6:8E66:63AE:ED3 (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Another removal of information from reliable sources

Abdulhy, the information that I have added has already been discussed several times. Your actions violate the rules described in WP:CONS. In addition, you have changed the neutral text "Begoña Martínez-Cruz in 2011, together with other scientists, as a result of a study of autosomal microsatellite loci, concluded that the Hazaras are closely related to the Turkic populations of Central Asia rather than Mongols and East Asians or Indo-Iranians" to the following "They generally grouped closer to the Central Asian peoples and are closely related to the Turkic populations of Central Asia rather than the Mongols and East Asians or Indo-Iranians". In most sources, the Hazaras are primarily associated with the Mongols. C.Fred, HistoryofIran, please pay attention to the actions of the user Abdulhy. KoizumiBS (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

KoizumiBS, I have not changed it, someone else has. If the change has taken place, it is not so strange. Abdulhy (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

KoizumiBS, I will revert the changes you mentioned to the state you like. But the changes you have stated about the language and history of Hazara language is not really correct and acceptable. There are many theories about it. This is highly debatable.--Abdulhy (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Hello, if you could discuss with me so that there is no editing war.--Abdulhy (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abdulhy It would be helpful to moving the discussion along if you provided some specific replies to KoizumiBS's comments instead of just stating that there are many theories. If you think other theories need added, or certain ones need removed, you need to explain why and provide your supporting reliable sources here, in the discussion, before changing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: In this article, User:KoizumiBS has given information that is not really true, that is, the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the 19th century, because the historical past of the Hazara language is not very clear and it is disputed. It is obligatory for him to study the language of a people from all aspects. Here, he likes to include only one language that he likes to include information, and ignores other languages in relation to the historical past of the Hazara language.

For this reason, such information in the article is incomplete and wrong.

With all the respect Abdulhy (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abdulhy And what sources state that the Hazaras spoke a language other than Mongolian? If scholars dispute the history, you need to provide evidence that there are conflicting theories. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Hello

A reliable source example about the language of Hazaras by Bacon.

According to Bacon (1951) the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning.

He also believed that It is possible that Jagatais the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word.[7]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. Abdulhy (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Esmail Kasemyar refers to "The inquiry into the history of the Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan". Note the title of Bacon's article. The Hazara are called by her the Hazara Mongols. In her article, Bacon writes: "Early in the fifteenth century Mongol tribes bearing the name Hazara were dwelling in what is now the Hazarajat, and it is clear from Babur’s accounts that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the name Hazara specifically referred to these Mongols. Thus the Hazara Mongols had become established as a people in their present habitat by the beginning of the sixteenth century". Bacon writes that their modern language is Persian. There are no words about their original Persian-speaking. Esmail Kasemyar, in turn, concludes: "Hazaras are the indigenous inhabitants of the Hazarajat and they are of Mongolian and Turkish origin", "Hazaragi has influenced nearly 80% from Persian, 10% from Mongolian and the rest from another languages".--KoizumiBS (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I getting deja vu? Abdulhy is "discussing" in the exact same vague way as Iampharzad whilst simultaneously edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting same deja vu too.--KoizumiBS (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS, It is interesting that the reliable sources and materials that I present are rejected with many excuses.

User: Iampharzad, whoever they are, I have nothing to do with them.

I request you not to disturb my editing. Abdulhy (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is going to "disturb" your editing as long as you adhere to the guidelines, most notably WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:VER, WP:CITE, WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and so on. This edit did not that do that [8] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Abdulhy, check out WP:VERIFY. Bacon's source is online. Anyone can easily check what is written there.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

In Kasemyar's article is either an error or a typo. He refers to Bacon's article. In Bacon's article says the following: "If the ancestors of the Hazaras came directly from Mongolia to Afghanistan, why did their language, an archaic Persian, contain so many more Turkic words than Mongol?". There are no words about their original Persian-speaking. Also it speaks only about Turkic words, and not about the Turkic language.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. I also included the information in the article according to the source. Refer to the given source yourself. Abdulhy (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Kasemyar's article says the following: "Bacon (1951) describes that the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that it is possible that the Jaghtai Mongols the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word". There are no such statements in Bacon's original article. There is only what I wrote in the previous comment.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly explained in the given source. Please see "[9]" Abdulhy (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I already looked. In Kasemyar's article is an error. Moreover, I am looked Bacon's original article too.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, no, it is not an error at all.

I have also written the source from Hassan Poladi about this. Abdulhy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a quote of Poladi's work and a link to the source. What a mistake in Kasemyar's article I have already written several times. Check out Bacon's original work. HistoryofIran, can you check Poladi's work?--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No unfortunately. Who is Poladi even? What are his credentials? So many questions, which could probably get answered if we had access to it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked Poladi's work. As in most sources, he writes that the Hazaras were originally Mongol-speaking. See page 80.--KoizumiBS (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They appear to mean Hassan Poladi, but I can't find or read the persian version they are citing. What appears to be the English language version is available at academia.edu]. Page 80 of which says The Hazaras, without any exception, speak Persian, which has been described as "Archaic Persian." and It is not known when the Hazaras forgot their Mongolian language and became Persian-speaking.. That doesn't appear to support what Abdulhy wanted to add to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the book.--KoizumiBS (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Poladi has presented several theories about Hazaras, including race, language, etc. And what I have included in the article was one or more of those ideas about the language of Hazaras. Abdulhy (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you supply a link or details of a English language version of the book? Page numbers would also be useful. The work that I found, linked above, specifically states the opposite of what you want to add. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The English version of Poladi's book, The Hazāras, was published by Mughal Publishing of Stockton, California in 1989, and might be the only book they ever published. However, I also think the author knew he was dying at the time (he apparently died in 1989) and the subject was niche then so finding a proper academic press in time might have been difficult. The book does seem to be cited as a resource by scholarly articles and got on the whole a very favorable review in Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991). "Review of The Hazāras. Stockton". Central Asiatic Journal. 35 (1/2): 153–156. ISSN 0008-9192. JSTOR 41927783. Retrieved 2023-02-04.. Hahn did have some criticisms since the book wasn't quite up to academic standards (it needed a good copy editor). He also noted "Though constituting an interesting and informative introduction, the chapter on the Hazaraghi (Haz.) language could have done with some expert advice and more extensive research". Erp (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the book I linked to above, it's available via academia.edu, and per the quotes I noted doesn't support Abdulhy addition that the Hazaras always spoke Persian. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just to note that there is a discussion at WP:RSN#Esmail_Qasemyar about this issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested Hello, what do you think about this resource? It confirms the contents that I had previously added to the article.POLITICS AND MODERN HISTORY OF HAZARA. pp. 35. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP generally only doctorial theses are accepted as reliable sources, and even then they should be used with caution. Masters would only be acceptable in the most exceptional of circumstances (e.g. it is cited by large numbers of other reliable sources). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Need help

@C.Fred: Hello, I have included this sourced information about the historical past of the Hazara language from "Bacon" in the Hazaras article, but I don't know that whay HistoryofIran removes this sourced information as POV, while this information has nothing to do with POV. If it is POV, other informations in this article also should be POV, for example, information added by the KoizumiBS. Once, see this information with the reliable sources provided by "Bacon" so that the truth and correctness of the information becomes clearer and more clear for you.

As: According to professor Bacon, the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that it is possible that the Jagatais the forefathers of Hazaras

– before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word.

I ask that you agree to include this reliable-source information in the article? Thank you Abdulhy (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the section and its WP:RSN [10] up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran hello, I read and know what you mentioned. Well, in any case, the sources that I included are reliable sources. But you have reverted my edits mostly due to WP:POV. Thanks --Abdulhy (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:POV or not, your additions were not correct per the section up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran, I don't know why the information I added to the article, you don't consider it correct. I request you to refer to one of the two sources that I included in the article, which is also online, so that it becomes clear for you.

Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you can't understand what's being said up above (such as this [11]) and in the WP:RSN, then that's not my problem. Please see WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran, It seems that your objection is on Hassan Poladi's source. Well, that's right, but you should consider this online source "The Hazaragi Dialect: A study of Turkic-Mongolian loan words on Hazaragi dialect of Afghanistan" that has spoken candidly about the history of the language of the Hazaras. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No. This is the fourth time I'm asking you to read the section up above and the WP:RSN related to it. Please stop pinging me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Hello, I found another source that confirms the information I added earlier.POLITICS AND MODERN HISTORY OF HAZARA. pp. 35.

• Now I ask you, can I add the information in the article?

Abdulhy (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Abdulhy Who has been the scholarly influence on Sarabi, and where is that influence evident and verifiable? See WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. You need to demonstrate that if you want any chance of generating consensus among HistoryofIran and other editors participating in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Google scholar shows 18 cites most of which are to the main topic of the thesis (Sarabi, Humayun (2006). "Politics and Modern History of Hazara: Sectarian Politics in Afghanistan". Fletcher School, Tufts University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)), modern history not to more distant history. The thesis might be useful to mine for references though not a reliable source in its own right.

However I think it might be useful to know exactly what fact(s) @Abdulhy is trying to add to the article. Initially it seemed to be "According to professor Bacon, the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that it is possible that the Jagatais the forefathers of Hazaras". However it seems Bacon wrote no such thing (something that Sarabi states "E.E. Bacon believes that Hazaras are the descendants of Mongols" (p. 16) unless one thinks the Mongols originally spoke Dari). Erp (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Hello, But he has stated the information based on other historians such as "Bacon" and "Schurmann"

Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Abdulhy Then why do you favour citing the master's thesis and not Bacon and Schurmann directly? —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much @C.Fred I will do what you said. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Erp Hello, This information is as follows: According to Bacon and Schurmann, they believe that the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari)

from the beginning. Bacon also believes

that it is possible that the Jaghtais the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word.

It has been presented by several historians based on the "Bacon" theory. I just cited two online sources here about. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Abdulhy has one again added Bacon even though he has been told a billion times that he does not say that the Hazaras originally spoke Persian. He also cherry-picked from a random thesis by a certain Humayun Sarabi, who alleges that Schurmann (and Bacon) says that the Hazaras originally spoke Persian. I can't access Schurmann's source to confirm that (apparently its The Mongols of Afghanistan. An Ethnography of the Moghóls and Related Peoples of Afghanistan). Also, let's pretend that Schurmann does indeed say that, we should still adhere to WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE; looking at this article, a huge amouunt of sources do not seem to agree with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

And now they have resorted to edit warring once more. This is just WP:TENDENTIOUS imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

And now they have resorted to removing sourced information about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras in vengeance [12]. Do I need say more? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Bro, what I deleted is like what you said yourself. It means that not all people agree with it.

I don't know,, why do you think my edits are POV? Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You are randomly removing long standing sourced info without any proper reason, and conveniently info about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. You are just violating WP:POINT now. I don't think you should be able to edit this article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Because that information was one-sided, it means that nothing was said about other aspects of the Hazara language, such as Persian, etc.

I don't know why you object when I include information about the Persian language of the Hazaras in the article. Abdulhy (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if it was "one-sided" it still doesn't warrant removing it just because you didn't get to add your heavily skewed text. If you still don't know why you are getting reverted, then I would advise to re-read this and the previous talk section a few times. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have already discussed its removal here. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

References

About new sourced content

@C.Fred: Hello, This new content: According to Bacon and Schurmann, they believe that the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that

it is possible that the Jaghtais the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word.

that I am trying to add to the article has been rejected many times by the HistoryofIran more due of POV, while this matter has nothing to do with POV. If we are looking for POV, we should not write anything about the language, race, etc. of Hazaras.

This new information is from several sources and there is no lack of sources in it. Thanks--Abdulhy (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please stop pinging me. Everyone has explained to you many times what the issue(s) is, yet you still fail to understand it. People might want to look at my comment here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad. Even if this isn't a sock, I believe they heavily fail WP:CIR, as demonstrated again and again in their conduct in this talk page and its article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't condemn me unjustly. That it is not my Sockpuppet. Abdulhy (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I need to ping someone's name to resolve editing conflicts and resolve issues. Thanks Abdulhy (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

I want to edit the athletes in this article. 61.5.205.23 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

I want to edit and add a picture of Hazara athlete Wakil Hussain Allahdad. 61.5.204.223 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you're talking about this portrait, it doesn't show Allahdad wrestling, so I don't think it would be the best image for the already-illustrated sports section. small jars tc 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

Please allow editing for other users as well. The changes I want to make is to add some political and military figures belonging to the Hazara people. Ismail Haidari (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

About Hazara language

Hello editors in this article. In the language section, incorrect and disputed information is written that "in the 16th century the Mongolian language was widespread among the Hazaras. According to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, until the 19th century Hazaras spoke Mongolian." these claims are false and exaggerated. There are several theories in the the language of Hazara people. It is better not to include such disputed informations in this article. Such informations do not help to spread informations in any way. Respected @C.Fred: as you have already been involved in such discussions, I would like you to give an answer to resolve these disputes. Thanks--203.171.100.195 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you asked.... The claims that the Hazaras did not speak Mongolian have been advanced by a blocked user and their sockpuppets. Accordingly, this administrator feels the way forward is to deal with further such requests as instances of sockpuppetry and block the requester. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Theories of Hazara origin

As Wikipedia rules, most of the main content should be in the main article. They should not be copies of each other. I have moved information from this article to the article (Theories of Hazara origin). I have not deleted anything from Wikipedia, I just moved them to the main article. Nooori333 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The main article barely has any info (and probably barely any views), that one should get expanded instead of removing info here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I only convey information that is based on anecdotes and quotes, not substantive information.

Many thanks. Nooori333 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Either way, please refrain from edit warring. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello HistoryofIran. Please see the article (Theories of Hazara origin). I didn't just delete the information from Wikipedia, I moved the content from this article there. The contents should not be copies of each other. Nooori333 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You have already said this, and I have already replied. Please see WP:REHASH. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nooori333: This is starting to get boring. You altered [13] sourced info to portray it as they are "theories" when they are not even written like that. To make it fit your pov, you even removed the sourced "Despite being a mix of multiple distinct ethnicities". You added something as obscure as "According to this theory, the Hazaras have not migrated from another land, but have lived in their current location since long ago." What theory? Does the source even say theory? Why didn't you add a page? What does it have to do with their origins and why did you portray it so vague? You didn't add a page for this addition either, where I also highly doubt the source says "theory" (even if it did, that does not give you the green card to portray every info about the Hazara origin as "theories", unless it's WP:DUE): "Some claim that the Hazaras have Turco-Mongol roots. That is, they believe that the Hazaras are the survivors of Turkic and Mongol soldiers who came to Afghanistan with Genghis Khan and Amir Timur in separate periods and settled there and created a new nation called the Hazaras over several centuries." I have plenty of diffs of you now trying to reduce the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras, which is making it very hard to maintain WP:GF. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran. My edit has nothing to do with anyone's speculations, but a truth to be told. I just had several theories about the racial origin of the Hazara people. I didn't delete anything from the article and some information I added is reliable from the source from Seyyed Askar Mousavi's book.

In your opinion, I shouldn't add anything to the article to reduce something. Nooori333 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the exact problem, you consider your edits to be the "truth", but truth be told, they aren't - they don't appear in sources and are instead often a piece of your opinion - See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Use the talk page to discuss controversial edits next time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nooori333: I can see that you even reverted it back to your pov version [14]. Revert it back or I will report you, and perhaps even file a SPI, since I'm getting a lot of deja vu. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran. In any case, you return my edits most of the time, while the sourced and correct contents should not be returned. Nooori333 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You're in no position to make demands. If the SPI of you fails (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad), I'm reporting you to WP:ANI for WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain more about who that user is, I don't know him/her Nooori333 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: Noori333 has been blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:06, 24 March 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:

• Hazara prisoners in 1880s in Qandahar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Genetic section, I might add additional information on Y-Chromosome C3* Star-Cluster. Which is according to the Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, & Wayne State University screening revealed the highest frequencies of C3* star-cluster (more than 30%) in Kazakhs, Mongols, and Hazaras of Pakistan. Please give me your suggestion. I've also upload a map image on a C3 star cluster on wiki. Is named The-chromosome C3* star-cluster.jpg TalibHassani006 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@HistoryofIran: I stated several times that I never deleted the information from the article, but corrected the same error information that occurred in the "quote of source" in previous edits. Again, I request you to refer to the sources once and make sure that it becomes clear for you. And your reverts are not fair, we can't edit according to the mood of some. Thanks! Jadidjw (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time you've removed sourced information under the claim that you removed an "error", which you failed to elaborate (make sense of even) here [15] [16]. Can you please elaborate this time? The fact that you are still trying to justify your previous removal is highly concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are reverts in edits, this is clear to all users, the old reverts were made by you and me, but this does not mean that every edit of mine will be reverted now.

In the past, you have been blocked several times due to reverts and edit warings, and now those blocks have expired and we have to consider our current edits.

I request you to state what was the reason for this [17] current revert? Jadidjw (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Several times I explained that it is not the sourced info but the content that was added in the "source quote" by mistake. I don't know why you call it sourced info. Thanks Jadidjw (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, this one is on me, you didn't even alter sourced information - guess it's getting late here. Can you link the full file of the source so I can verify? [18] --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, misunderstanding cleared up.

Here is full file of the source. [19] Jadidjw (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but the source does not show the quote that you added? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jadidjw: Once again you reverted in the midst of discussion, and for some reason you removed the previous discussion [20]. Moreover, your source did not show the quote that you added. Can you please revert yourself and answer me? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That unimportant removal was from past discussions that have nothing to do with our current discussion. Jadidjw (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote is worded differently, but in this [21] source it is clearly stated that it is derived from this [22] source. Thanks a lot! Jadidjw (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Genetics

Dear @Wikiuser1314: The controversial content about the genetics of Hazaras is based on the genetic research of Pakistani Hazaras, not other and all Hazaras, it is better the research include all Hazaras who are the majority in Afghanistan. Jadidjw (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Jadidjw:, that does not seem to be true. In fact, the 2011 paper, favored by you, is referring to Hazara in Pakistan:

Interestingly, the Hazaras from Pakistan, who claim to be direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan,40, 41 as well as the Uygurs, clustered together with the Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia.

The 2019 paper by Guangli He et al. analyzed Hazara populations from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is also pointed out by the title of the paper ""A comprehensive exploration of the genetic legacy and forensic features of Afghanistan and Pakistan Mongolian-descent Hazara"".

To dissect the genetic structure and explore the forensic characteristics of Hazara people, we first genotyped 30 Insertion/deletion (Indel) markers in 468 samples from 2 aboriginal Hazara populations from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and 100 East Asian comparative Bouyei samples using the Investigator® DIPplex kit.

So you contradict yourself and did not use a research which includes "all" Hazara, but the one who seems to fit your personal views. I am henceforth reverting your removal. Note that the starting sentence already mentions that the components vary, so there wouldn't be a contradiction anyway. Finally, one could just differentiate Hazara subgroups in a form: "Hazaras from Afghanistan display..., while Hazaras from Pakistan show...". Yet, as the 2019 paper does represent Hazaras from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the whole discussion seems meaningless.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Wikiuser1314: What you said is true that in the genetic research of Hazaras, the source mentioned both Hazara populations, including Hazaras of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that genetic research was only conducted on a group of Pakistani Hazaras, which is problematic. We should not rely on it so easily.

I ask you, dear user, not to oppose my edits, as others have not opposed on your previous edits.

Dear friend, let me and you and others reach a better and more reasonable result.--Jadidjw (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Jadidjw, I am not sure to which study you refer to? The 2011 paper favored by you used Pakistani Hazara samples as shown above. The 2019 paper (which you removed) used a broad sampling number from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Could you please elaborate which points do you consider as problematic? All three papers largely agree on that:

The results from pairwise genetic distances, MDS, PCA, and phylogenetic relationship reconstruction demonstrate that present-day Hazaras are genetically closer to the Turkic-speaking populations (Uyghur, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz) residing in northwest China than with other Central/South Asian populations and Mongolian. Outgroup and admixture f3, f4, f4-ratio, qpWave, and qpAdm results further demonstrate that Hazara shares more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carries 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry. Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians.

If you want to reword the paragraph, please try here at the talk page first, so we can reach a better result together. Sincerely–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Erm..... @Jadidjw: You have just reverted again without reaching any concensus or without explaining your exact reasoning. I suggest to self-revert your recent edit.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted him. This looks like yet another attempt at minimizing the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. I'm starting to lose count on how many times this has been attempted, majority of which have been done by this sockmaster (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad/Archive). --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is my only account, not anyone else's account. Please explain to me. Jadidjw (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said that you were related to that account. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, I hope there is no misunderstanding. Jadidjw (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiuser1314: Where does it say genetic research 2011 was done on Hazaras of Pakistan?--Jadidjw (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear@Wikiuser131: In the article, you considered the genetic components of Hazaras to be mostly East Asian, which is contrary to other genetic research. Since these studies are disputed by some that Hazaras are mostly Central Asian or East Asian, then they should not be added to the article. If those contents are added in the article, it should be more about them being Central Asia than East Asia. So that in most genetic studies of Hazaras, their components are more related to Central Asia than to East Asia.--Jadidjw (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Jadidjw, would you please at first clarify the raised points? Which paper you are referring to? The paper favored by you is from 2011 (!) and broadly based on the genetic landscape of Central Asian populations. They found that:

The analysis of genetic variation reveals that Central Asian diversity is mainly shaped by linguistic affiliation, with Turkic-speaking populations forming a cluster more closely related to East-Asian populations and Indo-Iranian speakers forming a cluster closer to Western Eurasians. ... Interestingly, the Hazaras from Pakistan, who claim to be direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan,40, 41 as well as the Uygurs, clustered together with the Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia. ... Most Turkic-speaking populations showed a contribution from the East-Asian cluster (in red), and most Indo-Iranian populations showed a contribution from Europe and Middle East (in green). It is worth noting that Uygur and Hazara populations showed the same pattern as the Turkic-speaking populations from Central Asia. ... Our study confirms the results of Li et al's study48 that cluster the Hazara population with Central Asian populations, rather than Mongolian populations, which is consistent with ethnological studies.49 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.

Eg. Hazaras show high genetic affinity with Turkic-speaking groups of Central Asia and are overall closer to East Asians (rather than West Eurasians; just like Turkic speakers per above). Of course the Hazaras are not identical with Mongolians as they have significant Indo-Iranian-related admixture from... henceforth cluster closer to Turkic-speakers with similar ancestral combinations. The 2019 paper on a far larger sampling number and specifically concerned with the Hazara ethnicity concludes:

Outgroup and admixture f3, f4, f4-ratio, qpWave, and qpAdm results further demonstrate that Hazara shares more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carries 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry. Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians. Hazara populations residing in Afghanistan and Pakistan are regarded as the descendants of soldiers of the Mongolia Empire according to the historical recordings and Y-chromosomal haplogroup analysis [5,6]. All 53 worldwide populations are generally clustered into six genetic affinity clades: American, East Asian, Oceanian, African, Central/South Asian, and European and the Middle East populations. Hazara is first grouped with Uyghur and then grouped with other East Asian populations, but not clustered with geographical neighboring South Asian populations. We finally dissect the fine-scale genetic structure of Hazara using 61,6938 SNPs from 165 worldwide populations (DatasetⅣ) and provided formal tests for genetic admixture using ADMIXTOOLs. The genetic affinity between Hazara and other references revealed by Out group f3(X, Hazara; Yoruba) demonstrates that Hazara shares more alleles with East Eurasians than West Eurasians (Fig. 6A). ... Our study sheds light on the genetic origin, structure, and relationship of Pakistan and Afghanistan Hazara populations and Chinese Bouyei using four comprehensive genetic variation datasets. The complex genetic profile observed in Hazara people can be explained by their genetic contacts with adjacent neighbors. Hazara genetic characteristics are corresponding well to historical recordings and linguistic affiliation supports their Mongolian origin with a long-term (approximately one millennium) of contact and exchange with Central or South Asian ethnic groups. ... Our findings from the forensic measures indicate that all 30 investigated Indels markers are informative and polymorphic in Pakistan and Afghanistan Hazara populations and Bouyei group, suggesting those markers can be used as a powerful supplementary tool for forensic paternity and personal identification in the Asians. Mongolian-descent Hazara people are an admixed population deriving about half ancestry from East Asians and another half from West Eurasians.

Our Wikipedia article says:

The frequency of ancestry components among Hazaras vary according to tribal affiliation. The Hazaras share higher genetic affinity with Central Asian and East Asian people than other ethnic groups of Afghanistan. They display high genetic affinity to present-day Turkic-speaking populations in Northwest China and Central Asia. Around 60% (c. 57,8%) of the Hazaras gene pool is derived from an Eastern Asian source best represented by Mongolians, although some studies argue for a Central Asian Turkic affiliation rather than direct Mongolian contributions.

Now, what do you disagree with? The text used in the article represents these findings. Your favored 2011 paper links them to Turkic-speaking Central Asians, which, based on their genetic makeup, is not surprising, and does not exclude a higher affinity to East Asians and or the Mongolian heritage of Hazaras. Both papers agree on that Hazaras display high genetic affinity with Turkic Central Asians with both sharing higher genetic affinity to East Asian populations than West Eurasians (in contrast to Indo-Iranian speakers). I do not see the problem, so I ask you again to specifically elaborate on the parts which you disagree with. Only trying to remove any mention of East Asian or Mongolian seems misleading and contradicts both papers.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is contrary to other genetic studies that Hazaras are around 60% (c. 57,8%) East Asian.

Thanks! Jadidjw (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Detailed and more accurate genetic studies of Hazaras according to sources:

Genetically, the Hazara combine varying amounts of West Eurasian and East Eurasian derived components. Genetic data shows that the Hazaras of Afghanistan cluster closely with the Uzbek population of the country, while both groups are at a notable distance from Afghanistan's Tajik and Pashtun populations. There is evidence for both paternal and maternal relations to Turkic peoples and Mongolic peoples, and Iranian peoples.

The frequency of ancestry components among Hazaras vary according to tribal affiliation. The Hazaras share higher genetic affinity with Central Asian and East Asian people than other ethnic groups of Afghanistan. They display high genetic affinity to present-day Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia and East Asia. One analysis argues that the Hazaras are a Central Asian people, closely related to the Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia, rather than Mongolians and East Asians or Indo-Iranians. Thus, another analysis argues that Hazaras share more alleles with East Asians than with other Central Asians and carry 57.8% Mongolian-related ancestry, although present-day Hazaras are genetically closer to the Turkic-speaking populations (Uyghur, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz).--Jadidjw (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Provide a source

@Jadidjw The number given is from already established sources give proof otherwise you will be reported. Barbardo (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear user, you must provide a reliable source. Thanks! Jadidjw (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree but the number I gave is from sources mentioned by country In the infobox. Barbardo (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The number should not be estimated based on countries because some countries where Hazaras live are not available in the infobox and the number I restored is higher than your estimate. Jadidjw (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you find any source then use it but so far these are the only sources so it ehould be based on these numbers. Barbardo (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What you are dling counts as vandalism if you do it again I will report you I have given you many chances find a source that proves you claims. @Jadidjw Barbardo (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Barbardo: Based on which source did you make changes to the article? If you consider my edits to be vandalism, then you are doing vandalism yourself. I have also given you chances to provide reliable sources to prove your claim. Jadidjw (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you being serious? You are messing with the sources given and claiming its 10 to 14 million find a source to prove it even the changes you made only made 8 million if you dont provide a source to prove your claim and revert the edit you will be reported. I already told you I got the numbers from the countries mentioned in the userbox lets see whp they will agree with if you think I am the vandal. @Jadidjw Barbardo (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You may not change the figure provided based on the source that the total Hazara population are "more than 8 million". Thanks! Jadidjw (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But its not hazara largerly only live in pakistan, afghanistan and iran there population number is given while the rest is diaspora in europe and northen america and they are not in the millions and their numbers are already given @Jadidjw Barbardo (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ignore what I said you gave a source now my bad @Jadidjw Barbardo (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Jadidjw (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What is even going on here. You two are still reverting each other (WP:3RR and WP:EDITWARRING). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we settled it now so its fine. Barbardo (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-existent and wrong source

The Great Russian Encyclopedia did not say anything about the language and history of the Hazara people. The information in the Hazaras article was added based on this false and non-existent source. Please see[23] Jadidjw (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Add a few famous people in the article. 203.171.96.53 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 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) 18:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

I would like to add Pakistani Hazara jurist Qazi Faez Isa to the article. 203.171.100.57 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 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. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Population

@HistoryofIran: If the source I added is not WP:RS, then the previous source [24] is still not WP:RS. It was previously removed because it was not WP:RS. Thank you! Jadidjw (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Just because x is unreliable doesn't mean that y also is. However, since the consensus was that Minahan is not WP:RS, I removed it and thus its numbers too. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Jadidjw (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting reasons

@HistoryofIran: Hi, I don't know why you reverted my edit as I explained it. There is a tribe called Moghols, who are descendants of the Mongol Empire's soldiers led by Genghis Khan in Afghanistan. And what I removed was inaccurate information that did not pertain to the Hazara people. Jadidjw (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Are you trying to refute scholars by stating your own deduction? Or are you stating that the sources don't even mention the Hazara? The former is obviously not acceptable. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the editing summary, Moghols are not Hazaras, this is a clear truth. First: the information that I removed was said based on the Afghan Moghols about the Hazara people. Second: that content doesn't help much for the Wikipedia article, it's better not to have it. Jadidjw (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So the former then. That is not acceptable, Wiki is based on WP:RS, not our personal opinions. Please dont do this again. Ill later do a check and see if you removed more sourced info in this article in the past. It looks like you have resumed your past edits of removing sources info about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras, which will not be further tolerated. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear HistoryofIran: Wikipedia should be based on facts, information that is unlikely to be true should not be found here. Jadidjw (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's currently based on facts. It would likely not be based on facts if we added your opinion. Why? Because Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. You've been around since 2021, you should know this. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

For those interested, I've taken this to WP:ANI [25]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Transliteration

@Jadidjw can you show where "Həzārə" was "agreed upon"? I can't find anything on the talk page(s) and there's nothing in the edit log to suggest there was a consensus. NorthTension (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It "Həzārə" was a minor edit that doesn't need to be discussed, you can make changes to it if you wish. Jadidjw (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I didn't look at the edit log correctly, sorry about that! NorthTension (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hazaras

Hazaras are not native to Pakistan and Iran. They are merely inhabitants of said countries.

They are native to the Hazarajat region. 2A02:A44B:A664:0:ADE4:47E4:8AE9:B2C6 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

I would like to restore some recently deleted reliable sourced information. Bravehm (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2024 (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. Jamedeus (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 (2)

A user named KoizumiBS has recently removed several reliable sourced content supported from Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopædia Iranica, and made inappropriate changes in the article. See [26] I hereby request to participate in the editing of the article and edit and restore those authentic sourced materials. Bravehm (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, KoizumiBS restored sourced information that was removed by the now indeffed user Jadidjw who kept attempting to remove the Mongol aspect of the Hazara, and who also made incorrect claims like you. You wouldn't happen to know Jadidjw? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that Bravehm is a sockpuppet of the blocked Iampharzad and Jadidjw. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad KoizumiBS (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The current changes in the article are biased and tasteful by one person. They edit the article according to their will, not from all aspects, they changed the correct and stable contents under the pretext of reverting some information. Bravehm (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You misleadingly claimed that KoizumiBS removed sourced information, when they literally did the opposite. And yet you're calling KoizumiBS biased and distasteful? That is rich. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So what is the reason for changing the article information and this type editing of KoizumiBS[27]. See all KoizumiBS contributions, they are only for one purpose in Wikipedia [28] Bravehm (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:JDLI. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't get it wrong. Any subversive editing should not be liked. Bravehm (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You're still yet to explain why its "subversive", and as long as you haven't done that, this is WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Under the guise of restored sourced info, KoizumiBS has changed sourced info that previously had nothing wrong with it, and this is a subversive edit. Bravehm (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Not good enough, this is quite vague. Please come with examples. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For example, KoizumiBS changed sourced info from Encyclopaedia of Islam "The Hazara people speak the Hazaragi dialect of Persian, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words." to "According to Britannica, The Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words."

Changed sourced info from Encyclopaedia Iranica "In the 16th-century, some Hazaras spoke a Mongolian language." to "According to a number of sources, in the 16th century the Mongolian language was widespread among the Hazaras."

Others see for yourself.[29] Bravehm (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is poor, the two examples you came up with are more and less the same before and after, KoizumiBS literally just restored the information removed by Jadidjw. So much for the "subversive edit". I'm outta here. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have left the others for you to check because there are too many of them and it would be difficult to describe them here. Bravehm (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Not how it works. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Reach consensus

@HistoryofIran: It was a restoretion of the previous sourced edit where the User:KoizumiBS made inappropriate changes. User:KoizumiBS has mentioned about Sultan Masaudi Hazaras in the "Etymology" section, which is not appropriate there. Bravehm (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You didn't think it fit the Etymology section.. so you removed it completely instead of moving it to another section (eg History section)? There's something you're not telling. Is this WP:JDLI like the thread above? HistoryofIran (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The content about Hazaras of Sultan Masaudi Hazaras and Kedi Hazaras ware removed because they not quite appropriate in the Etymology section. Bravehm (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You've already mentioned that part. But why not move it somewhere else instead of completely removing it? HistoryofIran (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don’t understand why these groups are mentioned in the Etymology section. I think they should be moved to the History section. "Turkoman Hazaras" is only the name of one of the tribes, and not the equivalent of an ethnonym "Hazaras". KoizumiBS (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, though for some reason Bravehm keeps removing it instead, they just did again, I think there is an ulterior motive here. I'm getting deja vu from my experience with Iampharzad and co. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done moved somewhere else. Bravehm (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the person you make me out to be. Bravehm (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Turkoman Hazaras" are a tribe against which Babur launched a military campaign. The ethnonym "Turkoman" isn't a name for all Hazaras. See "First Campaign against Turkoman Hazaras" and "Turkmun (Hazara tribe)". KoizumiBS (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Read the WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY rules: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself".--KoizumiBS (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one or more Hazara tribes, it is about Hazara's ethnic roots, and this is in the "Origin" part of the article. When it is like this about the Mongols, then you attribute one tribe on all Hazaras. Several information that you included in the article, it was only about one or a group of Hazaras, but you attributed it to all Hazaras. Bravehm (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You have included several information about the Mongolian aspect of the Hazaras in the article, They are basically about one tribe or a group related to the Hazaras, but you attributed it to all Hazaras.

For example you have given a Russian source which is only about one group of them, like: "еще в XVI веке говорили хазарейцы по-монгольски в северной части Афганистана" (In the 16th century, the Hazaras in northern Afghanistan spoke Mongolian) But you attributed it to all the Hazaras and its numerous tribes. Bravehm (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I include the information about one group of Hazaras in the article, and the information you added, which is only about one group, should be corrected. Bravehm (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything I added was taken from reliable sources. I didn’t write my personal thoughts here. KoizumiBS (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting and correcting the info.

My goal is that in the genetic studies of an ethnic group, all aspects of its descent should be studied. Since the Hazaras are made up of three racial groups of Iranian, Turkic and Mongols, all three aspects should be studied, not just the Mongol aspects, or Turkic aspects, or Iranian aspects. Bravehm (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from altering/removing sourced information [30] without any WP:CONSENSUS. To others reading this, this is what Bravehm altered; "According to Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov, the ancestors of the Hazaras were Mongol-speaking" -> "According to Doctor of Sciences Lutfi Temirkhanov, the ancestors of some Hazaras were Mongol-speaking." And they removed this; "According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the info is not even in the source, Timur Khanov cited Babur notes, for example, while Babur did not said all Hazaras speak Mongolian, but some of them. I added the word some for this reason. Bravehm (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The removal under the edit summary (Unresearched and repeated) was about the existence of words from other languages in Hazaragi and there were four contents about it, removal was only one of them, because it was repetitive, incomplete and only mentioned about the Mongolian language, while there are many Turkic words are available in Hazaragi. It is better to highlight the non-Mongolic aspects of the Hazaras too. Bravehm (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the info is not even in the source

The next time you make a dishonest claim or any sort of disruption, you and your SPI case will be taken to ANI. What the two citations say (Google translate);

• "the Mongol troops left in Afghanistan by Genghis Khan or his successors became the initial layer, the basis of the Hazara ethnogenesis."
• "The participation of the Mongols in the ethnogenesis of the Hazaras is evidenced by linguistic data... also historical sources (for example, “Notes of Babur”) and toponymic data"

while there are many Turkic words are available in Hazaragi. It is better to highlight the non-Mongolic aspects of the Hazaras too.

Then add (sourced) info about their non-Mongol aspect instead of removing sourced info about their Mongol aspect..? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

So why did Babur state in Baburnama that some Hazaras speak Mongolian. (i.e. not all Hazaras) This cannot be a lie in any way and no one believes that all Hazaras spoke Mongolian. And it is still not believable that some 1000-man corps from in about 800 years ago are the ancestors of all Hazaras, and unlikely that the 8 or 10 million Hazara population was formed from that 1000-man corps in about 800 years ago. Bravehm (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:PST, WP:CITE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: One request

This article contains info about the percentage of Mongolian and Turkic words. The info you added is only about the percentage of Mongolian words in the Hazara language, not others... It means that the information is not complete.

So the previous is better, (The Turkic and Mongolic words make up about 20% of the vocabulary of Hazaragi dialect.) because it is about the percentage of both language's words.

With Thanks! Bravehm (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

More dishonesty and pov pushing to remove the Mongol aspects of the Hazara by Bravehm [31] [32]. Despite the source [33] literally saying "Overall, our findings suggest that Hazaras have experienced genetic admixture with the local or neighboring populations and formed the current East-West Eurasian admixed genetic profile after their separation from the Mongolians." @Bravehm: I hope you have a good explanation for this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That is because the information is outside of genetic studies. Bravehm (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What? HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You've edited your comment twice [34] [35] after I replied to it (which you shouldn't unless it's a grammar mistake, just make a new comment) and it still doesn't make sense. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That info is not entirely true that the Hazaras only separated from the Mongols and have no other ancestors without them. Bravehm (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that their only ancestors were Mongols... and your personal opinion is still irrelevant, we follow WP:RS. I've had enough of you and your socks. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Again, it is not related to genetic studies.
• "www.fsigenetics.com" is not WP:RS.
• You can't accuse me of having sock accounts when I don't.

Bravehm (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep making disruptive edits to decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara [36], they will eventually get reverted after your block, just like Iampharzad and co. If the SPI turns out inconclusive for whatever reason, I'll be taking those diffs to WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I improved the article, not made any disruptive edits.

Why and for what reason do I get blocked when there is no reason? I don't really know (Iampharzad) and this is my only account. Bravehm (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Another attempt at decreasing the Mongol aspect of the Hazara [37]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My editing is to improve the article, not anything else and that editing of mine, has nothing to do with what you say. You only repeat the same words (Mongol aspect) for many times and trying to deprive me of the right to edit. Before reverting my edits pov pushingly,[38] note what the facts are and what are edited to improve the article.

As a Wikipedia user, as you have the right to edit, I also have. Bravehm (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You have a right indeed, but disruption is still not allowed, which you have resorted to once more [39] Ill repeat it for the third time: those are not Baburs words about the Mongol invasion bit, open the source and see for yourself. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the translator has said, so the information and its source are not reliable and accurate. Bravehm (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable because the author Babur does not say that, but the translator is mentioned at the bottom of the page. The translator's job is just the translation of the book. Bravehm (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:RS works. Once again you removed info about the Mongol aspect. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The translator said those words without citing any sources.

The info about Mongol aspect should not be removed if it is true. That information that is not reliable whether Mongolian, Turkic or Iranian, must be corrected or removed. Bravehm (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you make up your mind? First because theyre “simply the translators”, and now because they “didnt cite any source”..? You dont know how WP:RS works, and youre clearly removing to reduce thr Mongol aspect. Not worth waiting for the SPI, straight to ANI it is. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The description of a translator at the bottom of the page cannot be the same as the author. Bravehm (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please look at the contents of the article most of the info are about the Mongol aspects, especially the language of the Hazara people, which is not really fair and correct, while Hazaras are of Iranic, Turkic and Mongolic ethnicity. This must be equivalent, and there should also be more info about the other aspects of the Hazaras, not only about Mongol aspect. Bravehm (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

@HistoryofIran: I would like to discuss the deletion of this sentence (after their separation from the Mongolians) This sentence is included in the genetics section of the article while this could be in the history section of the article. Hazaras are said to be of mixed Turkic, Mongolic and Iranic races, but the source from this site "pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov", is not compactly correct, It has some fault info and is also not WP:RS. The ethnic origin of the Hazaras should not be attributed only to the Mongols, while the Hazaras lived in HazaraJat before the invasion of Genghis, and this is deeply proved by the idols of Bamiyan, which are exactly look like Hazaras. The current info (after their separation from the Mongolians) is misleading and should be corrected. Bravehm (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have turned off notifications by you, and you will be blocked soon Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bravehm HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You already told me to discuss the article for consensus on the discussion page, while I am doing the same.

Why should I be blocked? My edits are in good faith and strictly in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. You even reverted my first edit on the Hazaras article why does this only happen to me, not to others. Bravehm (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

Etymology The Hazara people, historically rooted in Afghanistan, exhibit a diverse cultural tapestry, encompassing various ethnic backgrounds. Within their community, distinctions are often drawn along geographical and ancestral lines.

In the northern Hazarajat region, tribes such as the "Daizangis" and "Baghalanis" are recognized for their Turko-Aryan heritage, blending elements of both Turkic and Aryan ancestry.

Moving to the eastern Hazarajat, the "Behsudis" trace their lineage to Mongolian tribes, reflecting the cultural influences from the eastern reaches of the region.

Conversely, in the southern and western Hazarajat areas, including communities such as the "Varazganis," "Sons of Muhammad Khwaja," and "Ghouris," a predominantly Turkic lineage prevails, with exceptions found among groups like the "Yezders," "Bayatis," and "Pashis."

Among these exceptions, the "Yezders" and "Bayatis" maintain ties to Aryan roots, while the "Pashis" exhibit characteristics associated with Mongoloid ancestry.

This nuanced mosaic of ethnic identities within the Hazara community speaks to the rich tapestry of cultural heritage and historical interactions that have shaped their identity over time. HazirKhan (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2024 (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. Charliehdb (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)