Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hazaras: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:44, 10 April 2009 editAfghana~enwiki (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,837 edits Population: commenting← Previous edit Revision as of 11:25, 10 April 2009 edit undoTajik (talk | contribs)11,859 edits PopulationNext edit →
Line 116: Line 116:
: Then, articles such as ], ] or ] should have only an etymological purpose, explaining the different stages in history. ] (]) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) : Then, articles such as ], ] or ] should have only an etymological purpose, explaining the different stages in history. ] (]) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::I am okay with this at face value as I have told you this before, but now trying to state that ] have little difference from ] is a whole different story, and even if it is a view of some sources, is contradicted by the majority of ]. Even if there is a blending, you still have a good amount of history where these two groups were clearly distinguishable. Yes, ] is understandable, but with Tajiks? Speaking Persian as your native language does not suddenly erase strong ethnic and cultural definitions. One's culture and identity is not based on language alone: it is not simply politics alone which have created these divisions (the Aimaq/Hazara one was political, as were others, but certainly not Tajik and Hazara). I've agreed with you in the past but if this is the view you have to the "Persian-speaker" articles I am going to have to strongly disagree. --]] 06:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ::I am okay with this at face value as I have told you this before, but now trying to state that ] have little difference from ] is a whole different story, and even if it is a view of some sources, is contradicted by the majority of ]. Even if there is a blending, you still have a good amount of history where these two groups were clearly distinguishable. Yes, ] is understandable, but with Tajiks? Speaking Persian as your native language does not suddenly erase strong ethnic and cultural definitions. One's culture and identity is not based on language alone: it is not simply politics alone which have created these divisions (the Aimaq/Hazara one was political, as were others, but certainly not Tajik and Hazara). I've agreed with you in the past but if this is the view you have to the "Persian-speaker" articles I am going to have to strongly disagree. --]] 06:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::: Actually, language <i>is</i> the main factor for ethnic identity, especially in the Middle East. The differences between Hazaras and Tajiks are nonexistent anymore. The physical differences of the past are blending into each other after some 1000 years. I would like to remind you that the ] Pashtuns are also different from the ] Pashtuns in terms of ethnic origin, history, etc. In fact, until today, these two groups are bitterly opposed to each other. Yet, they are still considered "Pashtuns" due to their common Pashto language. As for "Aimaq", please read the respective article in Iranica. "Tajik" is simply a designation for Persian-speaking, non-tribal, urban people. ], though an ethnic Turkoman, was labeld "Tajik" by the Mughals and Safavids. Therefore, a Persian-speaking, non-tribal, urban Hazara is very well - by definition - a "Tajik". Read the respective article in ]. ] (]) 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:25, 10 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hazaras article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3
Former good article nomineeHazaras was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Template:Werdnabot

Origin of Hazara word?

It is most likely the word Kidara has evolved to present day Hazara. Kidara empire which rose to power after Kushan empire declined around 4th AD after invasions from east and west.

"Hazar" does mean thousand in Persain but when "ra" added in the end, then the word Hazara does not make noun, adjective or anything else gramaticaly in Persian language.

The other thing very amazed me when i compared Hazara physical features to other Central Asian Turkic peoples including Mongols. I found Hazaras resemble more to Uyghurs than any other groups, specially Hazaras from Ghazni province in Afghanistan.

I have found even some common words with Uyghurs, English Hazaragi Uyghurs,respectively. father, atty, atta. mother, aby, appa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.196 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you wrote "ra". But to make Hazara out of Hazar, takes just an A. While one letter can make a world of diffrence... It still is just one letter.

I think to make HAZARA out of HAZAR we need to ad AH because in Farsi alphabet we need a zabar and ه or H to make hazara.

هزار = هزاره

hazar = hazarah

ofcourse we do not see usualy the zabar which makes an A in egnlish but it is there. it is HAZARA actualy not HAZARA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.244.73 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunni Hazaras

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

Hazaras call themselves Azra

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

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

Hazara Tribes

I've wrote down the names of few Hazara tribes I knew, please expand and correct it if you find some error. And no Hazara calls himself Azra, 'Hazara' would be more better while referring us.

Comments on Etymology/Origins by user: ShirbachaHazara

    Hazara means thousand??? are you kidding Mr.Author??? wake up for God's sake, 

and hit some books my friend. The Hazaras have nothing to do with Mongols. The Hazaras have been living in the region (Gharjistan, Zabulistan and present day Hazaristan) way long before invasion of Mongol to Hazaristan.

    According to your research we have been in Afghanistan only for 700-800 yrs (Ghengis Khan history) then you think, what you've just proved with your article... As much as we might be mixed with Mongols to an extend, you shouldn't be all that proud to be of his blood line. 

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

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

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

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

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

The Hazaras have nothing to do with Mongols.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bamiyanboy

I have reverted the recent edits by Bamiyanboy, for deleting sourced information is - in this case - obvious vandalism. Tājik (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Hazaras do not speak Pashto as the first language. Tājik (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Population

CIA's estimate (%9) is the lowest estimate. Iranica estimates them as about 20% (one fifth) of the population of Afghanistan. Both extreme estimates (among reliable sources) should be mentioned. Alefbe (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranica estimates them ca. 8% of the population. This number is surprisingly close to the most recent surveys available. see Afghanistan#Ethnic_groups. The Hazara population is blending into the Tajik population, so that it's impossible to differentiate between them. Unless people explicitly identify as "Tajik" or "Hazara", one cannot tell the difference. The differentiation between "Persian", "Tajik", "Hazara" or "Aimaq" is political and based on certain historical events. from an ethnolinguistic point of view, there shouldn't be any differentiation. That's why I have suggested to create 3 different article:
  1. Persian-speakers of Iran
  2. Persian-speakers of Afghanistan
  3. Persian-speakers of Central Asia
Then, articles such as Persian people, Tajiks or Hazaras should have only an etymological purpose, explaining the different stages in history. Tajik (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I am okay with this at face value as I have told you this before, but now trying to state that Hazara have little difference from Tajiks is a whole different story, and even if it is a view of some sources, is contradicted by the majority of WP:reliable sources. Even if there is a blending, you still have a good amount of history where these two groups were clearly distinguishable. Yes, Aimaq is understandable, but with Tajiks? Speaking Persian as your native language does not suddenly erase strong ethnic and cultural definitions. One's culture and identity is not based on language alone: it is not simply politics alone which have created these divisions (the Aimaq/Hazara one was political, as were others, but certainly not Tajik and Hazara). I've agreed with you in the past but if this is the view you have to the "Persian-speaker" articles I am going to have to strongly disagree. --pashtun ismailiyya 06:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, language is the main factor for ethnic identity, especially in the Middle East. The differences between Hazaras and Tajiks are nonexistent anymore. The physical differences of the past are blending into each other after some 1000 years. I would like to remind you that the Durrani Pashtuns are also different from the Ghilzai Pashtuns in terms of ethnic origin, history, etc. In fact, until today, these two groups are bitterly opposed to each other. Yet, they are still considered "Pashtuns" due to their common Pashto language. As for "Aimaq", please read the respective article in Iranica. "Tajik" is simply a designation for Persian-speaking, non-tribal, urban people. Bayram Khan, though an ethnic Turkoman, was labeld "Tajik" by the Mughals and Safavids. Therefore, a Persian-speaking, non-tribal, urban Hazara is very well - by definition - a "Tajik". Read the respective article in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories: