Talk:Hazara people/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ethnic percentages of Afghanistan

The ethnic percentages of Afghanistan's population has been a matter of intense debate, and is the reason for the wild diversity seen for some ethnic groups.

Some Hazaras believe the Hazaras are upto 33% of Afghanistan's population, while two Pashtun politicians cited 2%. The recent (2004) elections gave Muhaqiq (leader of Hizb-e-Wahdat, a political party representing Hazaras) 11.6% of the national vote. Not all Hazaras were expected to vote for Muhaqiq, who secured only 76% of the votes in Bamian, the Hazara heartland. The remaining population would vote for Karzai, hoping for a stronger central authority to bring peace, and this would include the non-Shia-twelver Hazaras as well such as the Ismaili Hazaras and Sunni Hazaras.

Under Abul Ali Mazari, the Hizb e Wahdat enjoyed support from almost all Hazaras (matter of opinion and subject to debate), but has since been associated more with Iran's shia ideologies than Hazara nationalism.

I think it is not true that Hezb e Wahdat is associated with Iran's Shia Ideolgies. In fact the strong support of Hezbi Wahdat for Afghan Central Goverment particularly for Karzai is seen as an obvious failture of the Iranian polocies in Afghanistan. at the moment Hezbi Wahdat and its leadership is closer to Americans than Iran. one of the things Mazari did was putting an end to the Iranian Influence on Hezb e Wahdat and that was one of the reasons why the party split in two parts.

Another point of consideration is the highly porous border with Pakistan. During the Russian War, Pashtuns, who had the easiest access to Pakistan, especially between Kandahar and Quetta, migrated in large numbers to Pakistan, a trend that was reversed during the Taliban years. Yet another point of consideration is the drought of several years which affected both Pasthun and Hazara regions.

Origins and Physical Type of the Hazaras

Regarding recent edits: There needs to be more of a current assessment regarding the Hazara. Anthropologists and genetic tests show that the Hazara have mingled with Caucasoid groups to some degree AND vary and many are similar to the Uzbeks. How can they not considering that they are surrounded by Caucasoid groups even if they have maintained a more Mongol appearance due to their Shia religion which has set them apart enough so that they haven't intermingled with their neighbors as much as they probably would have otherwise. They aren't exclusively of Mongol ancestry and having Mongol words in their language is a trait that is found in Uzbek as well and doesn't prove their origins to be "Mongol." They are more likely a Turkic-Mongol group as opposed to simply Mongols of Genghis Khan's period. it is to wonder that you never find hazara in the list of turk nations.

Tombseye 11:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


I would like to say that the total number of the hazaras in Afghanistan is much biger than what we see here. in National Geographic they recently said that 40% of residents of Kabul are Hazaras. considering the total population of Kabul ( more than 4.50 million people) it seems that they must be more than what we read here. only in Jaghoori we have more than 300,000 people. there 143 Hazara representatives in Afghanistan parlement which is about 18% of the total number of representatives. Abdul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.243.226 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Population Totals?

There seem to be some discrepancies regarding the population total for the Hazara people. The wiki entry for Afghanistan indicates that the Hazara make up only 9% of the population, yet this article quotes a number as high as 25%. Most sources around the web that I have seen seem more favorable to a number around 10%. Someone knowledgeable needs to verify this information.

Seth 5:14pm EST, 30 April 2006

Turk Iranian or Mongol

Hazaras are primarily Mongol if not exclusively. Its a bit obvious if you happen to know a few. Theres a large set of common vocabulary between Hazaras and Mongols, which do not exist in Turk Persian or other languages. It is also quite unlikely that a branch of Mongols seperated and settled in central Afghanistan at any time before Genghis' time since you do not see anything Mongolian in any other people beside Hazaras, who first made an appearance around 1550. Theres a painting online of Mongol armies being defeated and driven out of Iran by Shah Abbas, with the Mongol leader being an actual 'Uzbek'. It is also interesting that the Uzbeks do not have the Mongol vocabulary and culture that Hazaras do.

Hazaras are not pure Mongols and that is evident as well. They're more hairy and caucasian, some being significantly dark skinned than Mongols. However the poorer and more remote Hazaras have extremely Asian phenotypes that cannot be confused with Chinese or Uzbek, such as Dai Kundi and Dai Zangi Hazaras. This disqualifies Hazaras from being an indigenous population. However there is an obvious motivation for Hazaras to present themselves as indigenous as the 'right of land' is being fought out with other people. This is not a bad thing since both other groups, Tajik and Pashtuns have sources well outside of present day Afghanistan (Persian, Jewish, Greek, Dravidian).

As far as the population percentages are concerned, remember every side has a major motivation to overrepresent themselves, both currently and retroactively. A proper census is the only way, anything else is speculation. And reading numbers from historic sources, remember most of the text produced was by Pashtuns upto early 20th century, then it was Tajiks. Hazaras have only recently made big appearances in the literary scene (thus the jump to 25% or more suddenly from 9%). A Pashtun minister in Pakistan recently claimed Hazaras are 2% in Afghanistan, while I've heard of more than 50%. Hazaras are definitely at LEAST 11.9% since Hizb Wahdat took that many votes in the recent elections, and many Hazaras were with the Khalili group voting for Karzai, while no non-Hazara would ever vote for Mohaqiq (being a Hazara Nationalist). Mohaqiq got 11.9%. To counter this argument, its possible many Pashtuns in the south did not vote out of protest, inflating non Pashtun numbers.

Another important issue are the Chahar Aimag Hazaras. They may not be big in numbers, but have been classified as a seperate group in an effort to weaken the Hazara electorate. Most Chahar Aimags identify themselves as Hazaras and actually have a stronger Mongol phenotype than the average Hazara. There are also Turkmen Hazaras (not Turkmens) who are classified as Turkmens rather than Hazaras despite their own claims of identity. Together these groups would barely add 5% to the Hazara population, but are important in the integrity of the identity.

Lastly Hazaragi is spoken by approximately as many people as there are Hazaras. While there are Hazaras in and around Mazar and Kabul who speak Dari, there are populations of Sayeds and Kandaharis living among Hazaras who speak Hazaragi. The Sayeds are another topic of discussion as their identity is hazy. Most self-identify as Arabs, but have developed Mongol phenotypes and culture, and are completely integrated with Hazara populations. During periods of drought and persecution, many Hazaras took on Sayed identities (known as Shash-par, derogatory) as Sayeds would be given greater protection by the population on the account of being 'Holy'. Thus not all Sayeds, sometimes classified as Arabs, are Arabs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.180.119 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 10 October 2006.

Why and how the Hazaras became Persian speakers? language is one of the things that can provide some clues about them. we have other people around them who have smaller population but they speak their own language and not Persian or Pashtu. we have many turkic-mangolian words in official form of Dari or Farsi in Afghanistan as well. the mongols and turkic people run this country for years so it is obvious that their language affected Persian. We also can find numerous Turkic words used by Hazaras. These words cannot prove anything about the origin of the Hazaras. I do not doubt that they have mixed with different ethnic groups but I cannot accept the idea that they are direct descendents of mongols. why the mongols decided to stay in Hazarajat which is not the most comfortable place in Afghanistan to live? Who were then the people who were in Hazarajat before the Hazaras? why we have no names except Persian or turkic for places? how come the mongolian do not know about them?

  • Genetic analysis indicates that the Hazaras are mixed Turkic and Mongol, and that their closest genetic relatives are the Uyghur. See Rosenberg, Noah A. et al. (December 2002) "Genetic Structure of Human Populations" Science (New Series) 298(5602): pp. 2381-2385. In addition, physical anthropologists have found that the Hazaras are mixed Turkic and Mongol for quite some time. See, e.g.. Debets, G. F. (1970) Physical Anthropology of Afghanistan: I-II (translated from Russian) Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass., OCLC 90304. This mixture is not inconsistent with descent from the Mongol armies, as those armies were composed of both Mongol and Turkic elements. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done some moving

I've done some moving. I fought, the little girl depicted Hazara's better than that boy did. I, of course, kept his picture, but moved it down beneath. Randalph P. Williams 10:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Which Shah Abbas is meant?

In 1550, Abbas I was not born. Andres 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica

Encyclopedia Iranica has a very detailed article on Hazaras, Hazaragi, and Hazarajat. Please use them as a reference to improve this article.

Links:

There is ton of information here and it's from the most reliable source. This article can be improved alot with this information. Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have nominated the article for Good article status. Until it is reviewed, please help me further improve the article. KabuliTajik (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not just a Mongol people

The Hazara are not just a Mongol people, they are a mix of Turkic and Mongol peoples. The lead should reflect this. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead says Mongoloid, not Mongol, referring to our race or origin and Persianized referring to our language and culture. Hazara898 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Their language is a Persian language, but there is some question as to whether their culture is Persian. Do you have citations about their culture, as opposed to their literature? Have you read Debets, G. F. (1970) Physical Anthropology of Afghanistan: I-II (translated from Russian) Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass., OCLC 90304 --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On page 835, of Quintana-Murci, Lluís et al. (May 2004) "Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor" American Journal of Human Genetics 74(5): pp. 827-845, it indicates that admixture of Turkic genes in the Hazara take an "intermediate position between populations from the Indus Valley and those from Central Asia." It also confirms the possible Mongol origins indicating, on page 834, that among the Hazaras the eastern Eurasian gene indicators reach 35%. If you prefer "eastern Eurasian" to "Mongol", that is fine with me. --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't confuse genetics with origin theory. All three origin theories are possible with the genetic background measured. The questions are (1) when did the eastern Eurasian genes get added to the mix, before or after the Mongol invasion, and (2) when did the Turkic genes get added. --Bejnar (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Eastern Eurasian includes Turkic peoples so no need to mention Turkic in the lead. Hazara898 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Turkic is western Eurasian. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's in terms of language. Let's just write Eurasian, no need for eastern and western. Hazara898 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the term Eastern Eurasian better than Mongoloid. Hazara898 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


GA Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.

  1. Expand the lead to better summarize the article. It should touch on all of the various sections within the article, and would benefit from being two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines.
  2. The above section ("Not all Persianized") issue should be addressed, please resolve that if necessary.
  3. "Genetically, the Hazara are primarily a mixture of eastern Eurasian[7][8][9][10] and some western Eurasian[7][8][9][10][11]." It is not necessary to have four or five sources after any statement. Use two or three tops (preferably the better sources), and also the inline citation should go directly after the punctuation.
  4. Combine the Etymology and Genetics subsections into one since they are so brief.
  5. "The invading Mongol armies encountered fierce resistance from the locals around Bamiyan, who the Mongols themselves described as having physical features like the themselves.[citation needed]" Address the tag; also "features like the themselves" should be "features like themselves".
  6. "This suggests that people with Mongoloid features inhabited central Afghanistan long before Genghis Khan's invasion and probably arrived there in much earlier waves of migration.[citation needed]" Address the tag.
  7. "are descendants of the Kushans[16]," Again, inline citations go after the punctuation, fix any other occurrences within the article.
  8. "statues in Bamiyan.However, this" Add a space after the period.
  9. In the "Emergence of the Hazara" there is a single sentence. Single sentences shouldn't stand alone; either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph/subsection.
  10. " According to S. A. Mousavi, "thousands of Hazara men, women, and children were sold as slaves in the markets of Kabul and Qandahar, while numerous towers of human heads were made from the defeated rebels as a warning to others who might challenge the rule of the Amir" This quote needs an inline citation.
  11. "an international coalition intervened in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power and effectively saved the Hazaras from ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Taliban." An inline citation is needed for the "ethnic cleansing" phrasing.
  12. "However, discrimination still lingers." What kind of discrimination?
  13. "The famous case was the..." Change to "A famous case..."
  14. If possible expand the last few brief sections with any more available information.

Altogether, the article was interesting to read and doesn't have too many problems. This article has been waiting for a review for too long, and interesting enough, I had just read about the "Mongolian descent theory" a few days ago. Anyway, I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. Most of the above issues should be easy to fix and not take too long. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

Item #6

I could not find support for the material for which citations were requested, so I deleted the following: "However, the Mongol origin theory is somewhat contested on the basis of historical events surrounding Genghis Khan's invasion of what today constitutes central Afghanistan. The invading Mongol armies encountered fierce resistance from the locals around Bamiyan, who the Mongols themselves described as having physical features like the themselves.[citation needed] This suggests that people with Mongoloid features inhabited central Afghanistan long before Genghis Khan's invasion and probably arrived there in much earlier waves of migration.[citation needed]" Since these citations have been requested for a full year, I think that it is reasonable to remove this material until citations are found. Also, the article is not supposed to be argumentative, but instead is to neutrally disclose any controversies. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No agreement

Obviously, the editors are not willing to talk about how to make this a GA. All they want to do is press one side or the other of controverted material. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other editors seem to have abandoned this article. It is now up to you to make it GA, do whatever you like. PashtoNotPakhto (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

Since the above issues were not all completely addressed within the seven day period, I have failed the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the rest of the points are ever addressed, consider nominating again at WP:GAN. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. If you disagree with this assessment, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Common mistakes

"Hazara" is nowadays a cultural term rather than direct ethnic. Not all Hazaras are "Mongoloid", there are many Hazaras who are "Caucasoid".

Here are some Hazaras who do not fit the stereotype of a "Mongoloid": [1][2][3]

And here are some Tajiks: [4][5]

Claiming that Hazaras are "Mongoloid" or only of "Turko-Mongol descent" is totally wrong. In the course of 800 years, the Mongol soldiers ("Hazara" is the direct Persian translation of the word "Ming", "1000", which was the number of Mongol soldiers in each military group) have mixed with the local population. MOST of the Hazara's ancestors were NON-Mongols because the number of Mongol soldiers was quite small compared to the native population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are the Hazara?

According to this article:

Therefore, similar to the Azerbaijani people, there are many different theories as to what they are. No one here is going to convince one another which one is right. Therefore, I think the solution is to just list them all. The Hazaras are related to a lot of people, and also note that it does not say "other Iranian peoples", but simply "Iranian peoples" (it does not imply which group they belong to). —Khoikhoi 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, It's ok with me, I see but I think it's one of Khosrow II's and Tajik's Iranian propoganda. I'm chafed to see "Iranian related" stuffs everywhere about Turkic peoples, Turks, Turkey, Turkish history, Turkic history. -Zaparojdik 23:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is hilarious. People like you claim Azari's to be Turkic becuase of the language they speak, but when it comes to Hazara's who speak Persian and practice Iranian culture, you refuse to accept them as Iranics... This is hilarious, please Zaparojdik, go edit the the pages of all the Turkic peoples who live west of Central Asia, who arent ethnic Turks (Azari's, Turks from Turkey, European Turks, etc...) and take out the Turkic references to them, because they too are only linguistically Turkic and not ethnically.Khosrow II 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


It is amazing. I would like to ask those who say that the Hazaras are of Mongolian origin to bring some examples of Mongolian words that the hazaras use. probably it will be just few. Persian language and culture is very deep rooted among the Hazaras. Nowruz, Chaharshanbe suri, respect for Fire, building shrines, extensive use of persian poetry as proverbs etc. if they simply behind Mongols then why they changed their languages in those mountanous rural areas where no one except Hazaras were livng? why they didnt retaind their mongol culture? why they didnt retaind at least the mongol mithology and folk stories? why there no nomadic Hazara life style while the a good size of Mongols still live have their nomadic way of life? I dont think that just physical resemblance to MOngols can explain all these. indeed hazaras all dont look Mongolian. they obviously look very mixed. I have no doubt that the core of the hazara community are decsendents the indigious older communities of central Afghanistan. Hazarajat is not only Bamyan that the Mongols destroyed. it is almonst one fourth of Afghanistan. thanks, Shahin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.243.14 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hazaras are Mongol and its not a theory

Its amazing that after the round of DNA tests as reported in Time, after the lists and lists of common words with Mongolian, after the comparisons of rugs and yurt designs and old stories and other historical proof like the Babarnama, people still think and insist Hazaras are either Turkic or Kushan. It must be the same person who is insisting on Hazara.org's guestbook that Hazaras are Turkic. If Hazaras were Turkic, they would be closer to Uzbeks who are neighbors. Moreover the overwhelming proof of Hazaras being Mongol would not be there.

Of course its possible and likely that Hazaras have some Turkic mixture, but the culture, language, DNA tests of Quetta Hazaras, older Hazaragi names and written historical proof are all overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that Hazaras are the very army of Genghis Khan and are primarily and paterally Mongol, especially Khalkha Mongol (the 40 nations from eastern Mongolia). Even the Hazara subnation names have stayed the same like Dai Kundi Dai Zangi Chahar and Aimag. This discussion is so 1970s. PHd papers have been published and historical notes and even paintings have been discovered showing Hazaras as Mongols leaving Iran towards Khorasan.

So please stop spamming online sites trying to prove Hazaras are anything but Mongol, unless you have any pointers and proof otherwise. This theory should also be removed from the wiki text, but I'd invite further discussion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.228.61 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2006

Whichever origin Turk or Mongol or both, Hazaras are very proud of themselves today, most Pan-Turks accept them like brother and sister among Turks despite they speak Hazaragi a dialict of Farsi, although langugae is not very important and they cab learn Turkic languages whenever they want to,more than 20% Turkic words make up their language already.

why uzbiks did not accept persian? why turkmen did not accept persian? why pashtuns did not accept persian? why only hazaras are shias? which part of their culture is Mongolian? why the hazaras speak persian? give me one explanation. how many of you guys can speak mongolian? how many of you have been in Mongolia? genetic tests say 25% of them are carrying y csm of mongols but what about 75% remaining percent?

I've been to Mongolia. I can't speak Mongolian, but I'm learning. Not sure why that is relevant, but you asked. em zilch (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

False citation of "rape"

Under the heading "Soviet invasion to the Taliban era" the entry states:

"During the years that followed, Hazaras suffered severe oppression and many large ethnic massacres and rapes were carried out by the predominately ethnic Pashtun Taliban and are documented by such groups as the Human Rights Watch.[21]"

When you click the HRW article and read it thoroughly there is not a single recorded instance of rape. This Wiki entry has MAJOR POV problems. Let us PLEASE remain factual. The HRW article details massacres of Hazaras which is bad enough. No need to add your own salt and pepper to that.

I have removed the word "rape" since there is no artile from any Human Rights organization that has documented a single rape by the Taliban. They are guilty of many human rights abuses, but rape is not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.146.189 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. taliban have raped them repeteadly, not that they dont deserve it since their ancestor genghis khan raped so many people too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.145.95 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a highly inflammatory statement. em zilch (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taliban is actually Pashtun people. And raping people was one of the types of brutality they were conducting during Taliban time against Hazara people. They were drugging traveling people in hotels during their night stay and after drugging passengers they were abusing women and a lot of cases happened in which they have separated women from men by force and took them to unknown locations and executed the males and God knows what happened to those women. There is a place call SHAJOY, close to Kandahar Province, where a lot of people slaughtered because that place has flood rout through which they destroyed the evidence.

Responding to Hazaras identity, we are native of the areas we are living and large other pasture lends which occupied by Pashtuns using brutal force during savage Ab

Why is this article focusing on the racial origines of the Hazara ?

Why is the first line already stating: thy are an "asiatic" people? Who in Afghanistan is not "asiatic" anyway.Afghanistan is in Asia after all.I hate to see words like "caucasoid" and other obsolete terms being used when a people are described.It makes me question the neutrality of this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.36.176 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
I knew you how you were going to argue this; it's not something we're going to solve here. The reason a Pashtun speaker is Pashtun is because of Pashtunwali which also needs your father to be Pashtun and for you to adhere to Pashtunwali. According to some definitions I am not Pashtun because I am not Sunni for example, some Pashtuns consider us Iranians who simply adopted the Pashtun lifestyle, even though the spread of Shi'a Islam among Pashtuns can be linked with the Ismaili state in Multan. I agreed about the Aimaq thing; the Tajik-Hazara issue, even in light of the articles, I cannot say your conclusion and way of presenting the issue is correct. We will review the reliable sources at hand and come to a conclusion with the community. --pashtun ismailiyya 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)